Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Water Prices

Dr. Vincent Cable: What plans he has to ensure that environmental considerations are included in the periodic review of water prices. [43225]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): As part of his price review, the Director General of Water Services has requested guidance on the environmental obligations that water companies will be expected to meet. We have invited views on the issue and will publish our guidance in the summer.

Dr. Cable: Does the Minister accept that, hitherto, water regulation has given too much comfort to shareholders at the expense of both the consumer and the environment? When he gives guidance, will he take account of public opinion as reflected in independent surveys, which suggest an overwhelming preference for environmental improvement and reduced leakage, rather than for reduced prices in the next review?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the previous price review was, in retrospect, unreasonably generous to the water companies and their shareholders—I think that that lesson has now been learned. I take note of the suggestion of the chair of the Environment Agency that cost efficiencies achieved since the most recent periodic review, and further cost reductions in future could fund a £10 billion improvement in environmental goals without any real-terms increase in bills. The Government are considering those matters.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: On the Government's consultation paper on water charging in England and Wales, does the Minister recognise that circumstances in Wales may be different from those in many parts of England? In Wales, we have a plentiful supply of water, so water metering may not be appropriate in encouraging sustainable attitudes. Does he agree that the matter should be left to the National Assembly for Wales, which will be

up and running in June next year, so that we can adopt in Wales an approach that is appropriate to the social and environmental realities of Wales?

Mr. Meacher: We certainly want Wales to adopt a system that is appropriate to the different water conditions that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, exist in Wales. As I am sure he knows, the Government are clear in their view that, over and above the new houses that are being built, water metering should not be extended unless people want a meter. If individual householders apply to the water company for a meter, that is fine, but the Government do not believe that there should be universal compulsory metering, as we have made clear in our document.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister explain why the rate of investment in the water industry has doubled since the 1980s? Is that, perhaps, one of the achievements of new Labour?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is, as always, very selective. He has failed to recognise that the price of water has increased in real terms by between 35 and 40 per cent. since privatisation, which is faster than any other commodity.

Environment Agency

Mr. Eric Martlew: What was the cost of the Environment Agency's new headquarters in Cumbria. [43226]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): The Environment Agency estimated that the annual rent and rates for its new area office in Cumbria would be £297,000 initially, rising to £402,000 by the 10th year of the lease.

Mr. Martlew: That seems a lot of money to pay, given that the Environment Agency could have expanded on its existing site in Carlisle. Instead, it moved to a green-field site on the edge of the Lake district, which hardly seems a good idea for the Environment Agency. Planning permission was given in secret by Eden district council, whose reputation in planning is currently very low. Is the Minister aware that the National Audit Office is considering the matter? If it finds, as I think it will, that money has been wasted, will she consider renting out the new property and relocating the agency headquarters back to my constituency of Carlisle, from where the staff did not want to move in the first instance?

Angela Eagle: I am aware that my hon. Friend has raised these issues with the National Audit Office. Clearly, we await the results of the inquiry that it is conducting, and he would not expect me to commit myself to any action until I have seen the report. He must also recognise that the Environment Agency was founded from the old National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which had a lot of surplus office space that they had to rationalise. We await the NAO survey to find out whether they did so and got the best value for money.

Local Authority Capping

Mr. Simon Hughes: What proposals he has for removing the cap on local authority budgets. [43227]

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Our proposals are set out in the consultation document "Modernising Local Government—Improving Local Financial Accountability".

Mr. Hughes: That is helpful. When the Minister has considered the responses, will the Government hold firm to the principle that one cannot have proper local democracy unless local councils can raise the money that they think fit for the services that they are obliged to carry out'? Does she accept that, unless boroughs such as Southwark, the one in which she lives when she is in London and which I represent, can do that, the social services, housing and other needs of a community with deprivation such as ours just will not be met—unless the Government give them the money if they cannot raise it themselves?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman seems to be putting forward contradictory arguments. In the beginning, he argued that local government should be able to raise the money that it wished and in the second part of his question, he suggested that it was up to central Government to ensure that it got sufficient, which could then be supplemented locally. The consultation on local government finance is precisely about how we get a fair proportion from central and from local taxation. We have received good representations from a wide variety of bodies on that matter, and I shall look at the initial responses with the working group from the Local Government Association tomorrow.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can I add my voice to those that are calling for an end to the capping mechanism? Does the Minister, with whom we have been dealing about Derbyshire county council's capping experiment, accept that one of the sad features about that settlement, which cannot be ignored—I lay the blame at the door of the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but I will not take that any further—is that we have to pay about £500,000 in re-billing? Can I make a plea that when Derbyshire's settlement is arrived at for the forthcoming year, and we have this bright new dawn with no capping, that extra £500,000 will be taken into account?

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Government's commitment to getting rid of crude and universal capping. We have said that this is the last year that that will take place. It is part of our commitment, through the local government finance review, to find our way forward into a new regime, in which local and central Government can be clear about what their responsibilities are and we can work together in partnership to ensure that we get the most efficient and effective response to local people's expectations and needs.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I note that the Minister used a phrase about capping that she used when in opposition, saying that she would abolish

this "crude and universal" mechanism. Could she perhaps share with the House a little more of her thinking on the timetable for that abolition?

Ms Armstrong: I have told the House that the current year's settlement will be the last to include the crude and universal capping introduced by the previous Administration. We will pursue a different route next year, and we are discussing that in the light of responses to our consultation document.

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Will she guarantee that she will not use changes in the capping mechanism as the excuse to shift millions of pounds away from shire areas for the second year running? Does she accept that that shift of funding, which was the idea of her Government, not of the previous one, has imposed an average 10 per cent. rise in council tax in shires, a rise entirely of her Government's making?

Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Lady chooses her statistics selectively. The amount going to shire areas has not decreased by anything like that amount. Her predecessor used to complain that we had removed money from London. The difference between council taxes in London and in shire counties was remarkable, but the real difference was that London faced the electorate this year, whereas the shires did not.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for working to help local government. When she is reducing the cap on local government, will she have regard to the tremendous problems of local government, which the Treasury must do a great deal to ease? The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), referred to a 10 per cent. increase in shire counties, but my authority, Wakefield, had an 11 per cent. increase, showing that there has not been a transfer of resources to our district from the shires. We are suffering in many ways because of 18 years of Tory Government attacks on local government. Will my hon. Friend speed the reduction of pressure on local government finance, which is doing injury to our services?

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend knows that we are determined to get a fair settlement for all authorities in the United Kingdom. There must be a balance between central and local government funding. One of the problems is that the previous Administration dug themselves into the deep hole that we all called the poll tax. Getting out of that hole has been damaging to local government, and we are still trying to deal with the consequences. Our local government finance review will take us to the next stage, but it will still take time to achieve real fairness in the system after the appalling damage done by the previous Government.

Brown-field Sites

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: What estimate his Department has made of the potential for siting new housing development in brown-field sites. [43228]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): My


Department has made estimates based on past performance. We also encourage local authorities and the regional planning conferences to conduct appropriate surveys. In addition, we have started to develop a national land use database, and we have set up the urban task force led by Lord Rogers to examine how authorities can best use previously used land.

Mrs. Spelman: What assurance does that give to those who live in the vulnerable green belt in my constituency that the Secretary of State is not simply shrugging off to the regions the responsibility for enforcement of a higher percentage of new builds on brown-field sites?

Mr. Prescott: I do not think that this Administration can be accused of shrugging off our responsibilities. In our first 12 months, we have published "Planning for the Communities of the Future", and we were the first Government to establish that 60 per cent. of future building should be done on brown-field sites. That is a clear commitment, and we have reiterated it constantly. We are completely satisfied with it, and Lord Rogers's urban task force will identify brown-field sites and begin to prioritise them for the building of houses.

Dr. Ian Gibson: When does my right hon. Friend expect to issue guidelines on soil that will determine the levels of polychlorinated biphenyls—PCBs—organic chemicals, dioxins and radon gas on brown-field sites? That will be important to ensuring that the health of home owners and others who inhabit the sites will not be adversely affected.

Mr. Prescott: As my hon. Friend knows, the contaminated land study was published last December. I think that I could give a fuller answer, but I cannot at the moment. I will write to him.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: It is now some months since Ministers announced the abandonment of predict and provide. Many people in rural counties are concerned about the new-build housing allocations that are required of them. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give examples of reductions resulting from the Government's new position?

Mr. Prescott: One of the consequences of our policy since last May is that an additional 30,000 hectares of land will be added to the green belt. That shows the priority that we give the matter. We have left it, in the main, to the individual authorities and panels assessing housing to make the decisions. We have confirmed most of them, and one or two are before the courts. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on those.

Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is getting a working definition of brown-field or, more particularly, recyclable land? Will he urge the urban task force led by Lord Rogers to produce one as soon as possible and say how it applies to rural areas, which also have recyclable land for use?

Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. That point is in the terms of reference of Lord Rogers's urban task force. We await its report of the end of this year to make such judgments.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the Secretary of State explain why, four months after his announcement in

the House of a higher target for the proportion of houses to be built on brown-field sites, his Department is still engaged in legal action to force on West Sussex 12,000 more houses than any of the three political parties on the county council wants? Why has Hampshire not been allowed to cut the number of houses being forced on it? Is not this yet another example of Ministers taking the decisions at the centre against the wishes of local people and their elected representatives?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman served in the previous Administration. They could not make up their mind what proportion of houses should be built on brown-field sites. They started with 50 per cent., went up to 60 per cent. and then to 75 per cent., before reducing it back to 66 per cent. Whether in government or in opposition, the Conservatives are not clear about what needs to be implemented. We are satisfied that we have got the target right, and we will implement it.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend knows that I share his enthusiasm for bringing brown-field sites back into use. He will agree that, whenever a brown-field site is used for any purpose, pressure is taken off green-field sites. Will he use his characteristic charm and diplomacy on the Treasury, and on the Chancellor in particular, to ensure that we have the mechanisms to make brown-field sites competitive with green-field sites, because many of us believe that some tax help is needed to raise their competitiveness?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend knows that final decisions on taxation are left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that is normal in all Governments. We are discussing other measures in respect of taxation and planning controls that are important to achieve the overall objective. They are under active discussion and we will report to the House at the appropriate time.

Boundary Commission Recommendations

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What progress his Department has made in considering the recent recommendations of the boundary commission. [43229]

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We are considering the representations received on the Local Government Commission's latest recommendations relating to Cumbria, Hertfordshire, Cheshire and the former Avon. We intend to announce our preliminary decision on them shortly. The commission recently completed consultation on draft recommendations for Surrey, and we expect to receive its final recommendations in September.

Mr. St. Aubyn: There is growing concern in Surrey that, despite the fact that the Government will receive the representations in September, they will not implement them in time for the local elections next May. That means that the recommendations will be five years out of date by the next round of elections. Will the Minister give a commitment to make an effort to implement the recommendations in time for next May's elections, or does his Government' s commitment to fair votes extend only to situations that suit their party advantage?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, from correspondence that has passed between our


Department and the chief executive of Guildford, that a period of 14 weeks must elapse between the presentation by the Local Government Commission of its recommendations and the first date on which an order can come into effect. I am afraid that that takes us considerably beyond the October date for the compiling of the electoral register, which is the register on which next April's elections will be fought. That is a normal procedure; it has been followed by previous Governments and is being followed by this Government, and there is no political element in it whatsoever.

Standard Spending Assessment

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the standard spending assessment formulae for shire counties. [43230]

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The standard spending assessment formulae for shire counties are the same as for all other classes of authority that provide the same services.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady will be aware that, during the election, candidates for the Labour party addressed the fact that the standard spending assessment for education in Staffordshire was about half the shire average. They said that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would ensure that problem was rectified in a matter of months. We have had a Labour Government for more than a year, but all we hear is the same old song: we are reviewing the situation.

Ms Armstrong: The review of SSAs we had last year and the additional money that the Government have given to education mean that the hon. Gentleman's local authority of Staffordshire received an extra £17.58 million for education this year.

Mr. George Stevenson: When my hon. Friend looks at the formula for shire counties and other authorities, will she address the chronic injustice of the area cost adjustment? I know that the matter is under review, but can she give an assurance that the area cost adjustment and its unfairness will play a prominent role in that review?

Ms Armstrong: The area cost adjustment is one of the issues that is being discussed with the Local Government Association this year in the SSA working party. There are differing views throughout local government on what would be a fair system, and one of my concerns, which I urge my hon. Friend to take hold of, is that, although he may perceive injustices in the current system, some of the proposals tabled would result in what he would perceive as even greater injustices. The reality is that we have had a period of severe inequality and injustice in the way in which local government has been dealt its hand; we want to redress the serious injustices, but there is no easy way forward in respect of the area cost adjustment.

Greater London Assembly

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the proposed powers of the assembly and mayor of London. [43232]

Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement to the House on

Wednesday 25 March, when we published our White Paper setting out our proposals for a mayor and assembly for London. The White Paper included the proposed powers of the mayor and of the assembly.

Mr. Winterton: I have a great deal of respect and regard for the Minister, but does he accept that, both at home and abroad, the Lord Mayor and corporation of the City of London do an immense amount of good for this country, and that that benefit should not be undermined? Will he indicate that there needs to be a close and sensitive arrangement between the new mayor and assembly for London and the Lord Mayor and the City of London? I speak as one who holds the office of Upper Bailiff of the Worshipful Company of Weavers, which is the oldest City livery company and which seeks to do good, not only in the City, but throughout the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell the House how an assembly in which each assembly representative will represent 500,000 people will bring local government closer to the people of London?

Mr. Raynsford: The position relating to the Lord Mayor and the court of common council of the City of London has been discussed on several occasions by me and representatives of the City. We have agreed a clear and sensible way forward which will allow amicable and constructive working relationships between the Lord Mayor of the City of London and the new mayor of London, recognising the contributions that each can make to representing London internationally, which is our main objective.
We believe that it is right that the assembly, like the mayor, should focus on strategic issues that are of Londonwide significance, leaving local administration as the prerogative of the individual London boroughs. In that context, it is sensible to have the larger constituencies, which—if I may correct the hon. Gentleman—consist of about 350,000 electors for each assembly member.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the new structure, it will be important for the assembly to maintain a check on the mayor, and that it should have sufficient powers to do so? Will he consider how assembly members can be given the resources and, most importantly, the time to devote to that job without being financially disadvantaged?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We set out in the White Paper the important role that the assembly will perform in scrutinising the actions of the mayor and keeping the mayor in a proper framework of accountability. To enable that to happen, we have recommended that assembly members should be salaried so that they can concentrate full-time on that important task, providing effective scrutiny as well as good government in London.

Sir Paul Beresford: The mayor, the new assembly and the development agency are three new tiers between the boroughs and the Government office for London. All those tiers will have a greater or lesser role in planning, and all of them will interfere, which is a natural local government tendency, to justify their existence. How does the Minister propose to curb the tendency for economic planning blight in London?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the opinion of the vast majority of Londoners, who


recognise the terrible mistake made by the previous Government when they abolished London's democratic citywide government. We are putting right that deficit, and we are doing so with the wholehearted support of the business community in London. If the hon. Gentleman had attended the London First reception in the House last night, he would have heard the business community's clear endorsement of the Government's agenda.

Moss Roads

Mr. Hilton Dawson: What representations he has received on the condition of the moss roads in the Wyre district of Lancashire. [43233]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): My Department has received 51 letters about Lancashire's moss roads. Lancashire county council bid for support for moss road reconstruction work in its transport policies and programmes submission last year.

Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have grievous problems in the Wyre district, where the moss road infrastructure is crumbling? The moss roads are vital to rural community life, but they are unsafe and present threats to anyone who uses them. My constituents desperately need the investment necessary to reconstruct those roads.

Ms Jackson: As my hon. Friend knows, funding for the maintenance of such roads arrives via the revenue support grant. It is for Lancashire county council to decide how to prioritise those funds for the roads for which it is responsible.

Heathrow Airport

Mr. Gerald Howarth: If he will make a statement on progress relating to the public inquiry into Heathrow airport's proposed terminal 5. [43234]

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The public inquiry into the proposed terminal 5 at Heathrow airport began in May 1995 and is currently expected to end in November 1998. The timing and conduct of the inquiry is a matter for the inspector.

Mr. Howarth: Does the Minister agree that it is a national scandal that an inquiry begun three years ago and unlikely to lead to a decision for another two years is still proceeding? Is he aware of the damage that the delay is causing to British Airways and to the British Airports Authority? Does he agree that the quality of the eventual decision will not be improved by dragging the process out? Has not the time come for a timetable for inquiries into issues of great national importance?

Mr. Caborn: I cannot comment on that particular project, but I can say that the procedures for dealing with issues such as terminal 5 were set up by the previous Administration. On 15 January, I presented to the House plans for modernising the planning system so that issues of national importance such as terminal 5 can be dealt with differently.
I add that, like the inspector, I hope that the local authorities will give their summing-up evidence to the inquiry. Their decision to withdraw is regrettable, and I hope that they will try to make sure that their views are represented at the inquiry.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware that the line put forward by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is also being peddled by the applicants, who have taken up 30 per cent. of the public inquiry's time? Another 6 per cent. of its time has been taken up by British Airways, and individual objectors—the small men and women—have had only 41 per cent. of the inquiry's time. [Interruption.] Yes, 41 per cent. It is important that the ordinary, simple objectors have their day in court to resist the big battalions of BAA and British Airways.

Mr. Caborn: It is right that everybody gets the opportunity to object to a planning application. Three, possibly four, years is far too long for any planning application to take. We are revising the system from top to bottom. We shall deal not with the symptoms but with the cause—the planning system. We shall revise and modernise the system when we have completed the consultation, which I hope will be by the end of the year.

Railways (Disabled Access)

Mr. Tony McNulty: What proposals he has to improve railway accessibility for people with disabilities. [43255]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): We have recently published draft regulations to require all new trains and trams coming into service after 31 December to be fully accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users.

Mr. McNulty: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's welcome proposals will work only if the privatised railway companies take note of them and implement them in full? Can he tell the House what penalties might be used against the privatised railway industry if it does not implement in full our regulations and make the public railway system completely accessible to disabled people?

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is right, and we shall not hesitate to take action. We propose that the regulations be enforced by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, which will carry out inspections of the new rolling stock at various stages of construction to make sure that all the technical requirements are met. The Department will issue guidance on their operation.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that disabled people, more than any other sector of society, are dependent on public transport? Is he aware that RMT's decision to hold a series of strikes will keep thousands of disabled people prisoner in their homes? Will he condemn that action unreservedly on behalf of those disabled people? Does he agree that it does little to enhance rail as part of an integrated transport policy?

Dr. Strang: All hon. Members want strike action to be avoided and early agreement to be reached between the


employers and the trade union. However, the Government's responsibility is to move as quickly as possible to give disabled access to the railways and London Underground, where it is badly needed.

Birmingham Northern Relief Road

Dr. Tony Wright: If he will make a statement on the refusal of MEL to agree to the publication of the contract terms for the Birmingham northern relief road. [43256]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): This matter is currently under consideration by the courts. It would therefore be wrong for me to comment.

Dr. Wright: My right hon. Friend will know that there is great concern about many aspects of this private motorway. What are people to think when a Minister of the Crown has to go to the concessionnaire and ask permission to publish the terms of the contract for that road, and has that permission refused? What are people to think when the construction of a privately funded road turns out to involve over £20 million-worth of public money? Does not the whole sorry saga of the BNRR provide an object lesson in how not to make transport policy?

Dr. Strang: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we are committed to spending £20 million to help meet the cost of that new junction on the M42. That is partly because much of the traffic on that junction will not be on the BNRR; it is also the result of the agreement entered into by the previous Administration. My hon. Friend's earlier point is the very point that is before the court at present, and I am sure that he would not expect me to comment.

Mr. Tom Brake: Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that the deceit perpetrated by the previous Government in claiming that the initiative was privately financed has been matched by that of the Labour party, which claimed in opposition that it opposed the BNRR but which now supports it in government? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to abandon that environmentally damaging project?

Dr. Strang: No. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we set out our position clearly following the receipt of the inspector's report and when we announced our decisions on the accelerated roads review. We do see the need for a new strategic through route, to benefit the west midlands, the north-west and Scotland. Moreover, we very much hope that the new rail terminal at Hams Hall will encourage more freight on to the railway.

School Journeys

Mr Lawrie Quinn: What plans he has to encourage more children to walk, cycle and use public transport for their journey to school. [43257]

Mr. Brian White: What measures he proposes to reduce the number of car journeys to school and term-time peak-hour traffic congestion. [43264]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We will shortly publish a White Paper following the comprehensive spending review, which will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution. An important objective will be to reduce car use on journeys to school.

Mr. Quinn: You, Madam Speaker, will know that this week is national bike week. May I commend to you all those people who joined me this morning on the cycle ride to the House? Let me ask my right hon. Friend a very serious question: do not many parents find it difficult to allow their children to progress to school outside the confines of the motor car, because they fear for their safety? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating local authorities such as Scarborough borough council, which is introducing a cycling strategy especially for children, to allow them to go to school safely?

Mr. Prescott: Yes. That is a very important matter. I welcome national bike week, which is this week. The responses to our consultation about the use of the cycle will be embodied in our forthcoming integrated transport White Paper. We believe that we should make it easier for people to cycle and walk, and that will be a key element in our White Paper.
The question of how we encourage people to cycle or walk to school is important. Between 1975 and 1994, the use of cars taking youngsters to school more or less doubled, from 12 per cent. to 27 per cent. We look to local authorities to think of imaginative schemes to improve that situation. I congratulate Warwickshire county council on the improvements that it has made regarding Myton school. The council built a bridge over the River Avon, which has enabled the number of people going to school on foot or by bicycle to increase—to more than 700 walking and more than 400 cycling each morning.

Mr. White: Many Labour authorities have introduced innovative schemes. In Leicester, 20-mph schemes, among others, have reduced accidents by about two thirds. Many of us hope that, following publication of the White Paper, such schemes will be promoted throughout the country, not left to one or two authorities.

Mr. Prescott: We certainly see that as an important issue. It is one reason why we should like to decentralise some decision making, to allow local authorities more resources and powers to encourage such developments.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: We were sorry not to see the Secretary of State on the bike ride this morning, although we were delighted to see the Minister for the Environment bicycling to work for a change.
When does the Secretary of State expect to publish the White Paper? There have been very encouraging noises, with which most hon. Members would agree, but we have yet to see the substance; it seems to have been delayed—according to newspaper reports—by another month.
On peak-hour congestion, will the Secretary of State encourage fellow Ministers to use public transport, bicycle and walk, as question No. 29 suggests?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, I would certainly like to encourage that. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is very much involved in achieving such objectives. I flew in from New York this morning—and I do not think that anyone has considered cycling from there yet. As I said in my first reply, the White Paper dealing with integrated transport issues will be published after the comprehensive spending review.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am sure that cycling from New York will shortly be Liberal Democrat policy.
May I press the Secretary of State on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)? We are more than a year into the life of this Government and there is still no comprehensive transport policy. Why are we still waiting for the Government's White Paper, and when did the Secretary of State first learn from the Treasury that he would not be allowed to publish a White Paper until his whole Department had been vetted by the Treasury?

Mr. Prescott: I suppose that I should offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on appearing at the Dispatch Box for the first time in his new capacity. He should not believe everything that he reads in the press. We are conducting a proper and intelligent discussion and we shall publish the White Paper after the comprehensive spending review, which will determine expenditure for the next three years.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman has never said that before.

Mr. Prescott: Whether or not I have said it before, it is a proper decision. I do not know when the comprehensive spending review will be concluded or when it will come before the House. Governments make judgments about such matters. The hon. Gentleman should not criticise us for not producing a White Paper after only 12 months in government. I spent an awful lot of time undoing the mess that I inherited from the previous Administration, trying to find the £5 billion that is needed for the underground and a similar amount for the channel tunnel rail link. The previous Administration did nothing about those messes, and I have spent considerable time securing a more successful conclusion involving a public-private partnership that is now offering a tremendous amount of investment in our public infrastructure.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Those of us who took part in the parliamentary cycle ride this morning appreciated the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment joined us on the ride and that the Minister for Transport in London was here to greet us when we arrived at the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that a great gift to cyclists would

be a reduction in the number of motorised vehicles and the separation of those vehicles from pedestrian and cycle lanes. Can he confirm that the White Paper will encourage local authorities to put in place such schemes in order to make cycling less hazardous?

Mr. Prescott: I assure my hon. Friend that we are already encouraging local authorities to do that. When they see our White Paper, they will realise that it is an important part of achieving an integrated transport system and a better environment.

Drink Driving

Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement about his plans to reform drink-driving laws. [43258]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): We recently consulted on a range of proposals further to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by drink driving, and will make a statement in due course.

Mr. Syms: As the key to reducing the number of deaths on our roads is a crackdown on hard-core drink drivers and the tough and rigorous enforcement of existing laws and limits, do the Government intend to reduce the blood alcohol limit from 80 mg to 50 mg—especially as Downing street has made its concerns known?

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we certainly need to crack down on hard-core drivers who continue to drink heavily before operating a motor vehicle. In our consultation document—the consultation has concluded—we propose a range of measures that we believe will reduce the death toll on our roads as a result of drink driving. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that we need an effective package of measures that will drive down further the number of people who are killed as a result of drink driving.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many drivers would prefer not to have alcoholic drinks if cheaper soft drinks and non-alcoholic beers and lagers were available? The 400 per cent. mark-up on non-alcoholic lager is an outrageous rip-off and an absolute disgrace. We should consider making representations to breweries on reducing the price of such drinks. That would save us having to investigate this issue, although many of us think that it is high time that it was sent to the Office of Fair Trading.

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, and I shall draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. There are still far too many people who are not complying with existing legislation, so it is vital that we achieve more compliance.

Jubilee Line Extension

Mr. John M. Taylor: If he will make a statement on progress on the Jubilee line extension. [43259]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Tunnelling and track laying for the Jubilee line extension are complete; 58 of the 59 new trainsets have been built, and the last is under manufacture. Work on station fit-out and electrical and mechanical equipment is well under way. On-site testing of the signalling and communications software has begun. London Transport has undertaken a thorough review of the programme, and plans to open the entire line in spring 1999.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State accept from me that the Jubilee line extension is extremely important—almost as important as the Birmingham northern relief road—but will come as poor deliverance to travellers unless he can sort out industrial relations on the London underground?

Mr. Prescott: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman considers the Birmingham northern relief road alongside the Jubilee line. That road was delayed for well over 10 years owing to the previous Administration's failure to make any decision whatever on the matter. I agree that the Jubilee line extension is an important first new underground line for this generation. It will provide many interchanges, and will be an important part of the integration of London's transport system, and absolutely essential for the millennium.

Mr. John Austin: Having visited the Jubilee line, does my right hon. Friend share my view that it is a shining example of civil engineering excellence that has brought much-needed regeneration to an area of London which has probably suffered more job losses than any other part of the country? Does he agree that, if the Conservatives had not abolished the Greater London council, the Jubilee line would probably be up and running, alongside the Woolwich rail tunnel and metro, which are well on target for opening in the new millennium?

Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Jubilee line is a good piece of engineering. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be sad that it was delayed for 12 months, although, to be fair to the people involved, one delay was caused by the failure of a tunnel at Heathrow, which had implications for construction for six months, and the other was caused because the signalling system was not as modern as we had hoped. That cannot reflect on the management of the Jubilee line—I am satisfied that the management is doing well and that the line will be opened in the time that I have mentioned.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the concept of the Jubilee line was one of the great achievements of the previous Government, and that it is in danger of being ruined by this Government's incompetence? Will he repeat the confirmation that he has just given, or will he accept that there is serious danger that it will not be running at full capacity by the millennium? Will he attempt to remedy that by increasing work on the line from 16 to 24 hours a day? Will he deny reports that contingency plans have been drawn up for bringing in visitors to the dome by coach, through the Blackwall tunnel, because the Jubilee line will not be able to cope with the volume of traffic? In short, will he stop messing up a good Tory project?

Mr. Prescott: As is so often the case, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are not consistent with the truth. He

should consider what has happened on the Jubilee line and the reasons for the delay, which I have mentioned. The extension will be completed: it was started by a publicly owned enterprise and it will be finished by a publicly owned enterprise. The previous Government decided to invest in private entrepreneurial business such as the channel tunnel link, which failed totally. We have had to reorganise it, so he has been a bit unfair in his ideological comments.
The hon. Gentleman should examine the amount of traffic that is expected to be carried to the dome by the underground—which is about 40 per cent., so it makes sense to consider alternative transport. Not everyone will travel by the underground. People will go by bus, by train and by other means of transport, including a river service, which we have brought back and which the previous Administration could not maintain. We are not doing too badly after all.

Rema

Yvette Cooper: If he will make a statement on the sinking of the Rema merchant shipping vessel. [43260]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): The marine accident investigation branch will be investigating the loss of the Rema. It is intended that a report detailing its findings will be published in due course.

Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She will be aware that men from Castleford went down on the Rema, and that this week some of their relatives have been out to the spot where the ship sank to pay tribute to them. Will she ensure that the forthcoming consultation paper on fishing vehicles accidents is widened to include evidence on marine vessel accidents, such as that of the Rema? I also urge her to consider improving support for the relatives of those involved in fatal accidents, who may be in great distress, unable to have an inquest and bury their loved ones, and unsure of where to turn to find out what happened.

Ms Jackson: The consultation document to which my hon. Friend referred will exclusively look into the appalling record of tragedies in the British fishing fleet. If it were expanded to include merchant vessels, the Rema would be excluded because she was sailing under a foreign flag. However, it will address the issue of flag-state implementation and the Government's commitment to working with the International Maritime Organisation and the European Commission to ensure that substandard ships are taken from the oceans of the world, because they carry with them the risk of appalling loss of life and pose a threat of pollution.
My hon. Friend referred to those who suffered a grievous loss in that accident. The Government will certainly consider all the issues that she raises. I feel sure that the entire House would wish to extend their condolences and their sympathy to her constituents.

Vehicle Emissions

Mr. Laurence Robertson: What discussions he has had with vehicle manufacturers about the steps they are taking to reduce emissions. [43261]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I have held discussions with manufacturers and their suppliers. We have established a cleaner vehicle task force to advance work in this area.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Government of the United States are working with approximately 300 manufacturers of cars and car components on the programme for a new generation of vehicles. The Americans and the Japanese seem to be more advanced than we are with the development of alternative fuel vehicles. Has the Minister had any discussions with those Governments? If so, has that advanced our position?

Dr. Strang: Yes, the Government are active in this area. The cleaner vehicles task force has been involved in all these matters. Indeed, the foresight vehicle programme of the Department of Trade and Industry supports the research to which the hon. Gentleman referred. These are important matters, and we want to encourage alternative fuels. Technology has the potential for great advances in this area.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Given that the Government are keen to promote low and nil-emission vehicles, will they take a leaf out of local government's book and draw some lessons from the experience of a consortium of United Kingdom local authorities through the Zeus project? They are funding the procurement of some low and nil-emission vehicles in concert with other European cities, which, by working together, have been able to lever into place a market for such vehicles. Will the Government use their market power in the procurement of vehicles to make a real difference by buying those vehicles in numbers, so that the prices will come down and the technology will advance?

Dr. Strang: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched the ALTER project at Chester only a few weeks ago. It is aimed at encouraging a number of European cities to exclude vehicles that emit such pollutants. We are also doing a great deal at home. As the hon. Gentleman said, many local authorities are making good progress. The Government often prime those developments with grants from the Energy Saving Trust.

Rail Passenger Safety

Ms Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on his policies to improve rail passenger safety. [43262]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Railways are already one of the safest forms of transport but we cannot be complacent. We look to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, as the safety regulators for the railways, to use their advisory and enforcement powers as appropriate to see that rail safety standards are maintained and improved where necessary.

Ms Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that one of the most important lessons that we must learn from the tragic accidents on the railways in recent years, including the accident in Watford in 1996, is that we should put in place a system that prevents trains from going through red danger signals? Does she agree that the safety of passengers must be paramount and that they must have confidence in the recommendations resulting from any inquiries. Will this Government—unlike the previous Administration—translate those lessons into law?

Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend will be aware that, on 21 May, the Health and Safety Commission launched a consultation on a draft regulation that would require train protection systems to be fitted to all trains and at all key junctions by 1 January 2004. The consultation period ends on 21 August. My hon. Friend also referred to the crash that took place in her constituency. The findings of that inquiry will be furnished to the inspector who will be holding the Southall inquiry. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that safety is of prime importance, not only to passengers' sense of security, but to the Government.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister confirm that she and her officials will be in touch with the German authorities to find out whether there are any lessons to be learned from last week's tragedy, in case there are implications for the operation of our railway system?

Ms Jackson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety Executive has already made contact with its German counterpart and will be kept informed of everything that is discovered from that appalling accident. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport sent his condolences to the German Minister, which I am sure the House and the country would endorse.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, in evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Sir John Kerr, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office said that Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, junior Minister at the Foreign Office was briefed on the investigation into Sandline International before she answered questions in the House of Lords on 10 March. Baroness Symons did not refer to the investigation on 10 March, and when on 15 May she was asked when she knew of the investigation, she again failed to refer to that briefing. Moreover, on 6 May the Foreign Secretary gave the House the clear impression that no Minister had been briefed about the investigation until April.
As you will be aware, Madam Speaker, the matter is of fundamental importance. Everyone in the House wants the Government to play an effective part in the world. We cannot be confident that they are doing so unless they account fully, openly and honestly to the House. This morning's evidence to the Select Committee—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am very tolerant and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, but I now seek to know what the point of order is for me.

Mr. Howard: The relevance is this. In view of the gravity of the matter, as indicated by the proceedings before the Select Committee this morning, have you had

any intimation at all that the Foreign Secretary, or any of his Ministers, intend to make an urgent statement to the House, as I believe they should?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall respond to that point of order, which indeed was not a point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is fully aware that I certainly cannot comment on exchanges that took place in a Select Committee. The House must wait for the report of the inquiry of that Select Committee and that is the answer.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to the publication this morning of a consultative paper by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on waste disposal in the domestic sector. As it was widely reviewed in the media this morning, I attempted to obtain a copy from the Vote Office. I have been notified that it will not be available to hon. Members until Thursday. My concern increased at lunchtime when I met the chairman and chief executive of the Local Government Association and discovered that they had been supplied with copies of the document and have been free to comment on it since this morning. Will you use your good offices to have it made available in the Vote Office without further delay?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have made inquiries, and I understand that a copy of the consultation paper has been sent individually to every Member of Parliament—he might check with the Post Office—and that, at any rate, the document can be seen in the Library. Although, as he says, further copies will be available in the Vote Office on Thursday, my latest information is that every individual Member has been sent a copy of the document.

Youth Parliament

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a parliament of young people in the United Kingdom; to make provisions for the powers and functions of that parliament; and for connected purposes. 
The argument for my Bill starts from three main premises. First, law making in a democracy expects that those affected by the laws should be consulted about them. For young people, that is still almost unheard of. Some schools run excellent school councils on which pupils have a chance to shape the regime of the school and influence the staff, but that is still comparatively rare. Some local authorities have established youth councils, but by the time that young people work their way through all the adult rules and procedures, it is scarcely surprising that very few feel inclined to take an enduring share in the enterprise. The problem is exacerbated because very few councils make resources available to back the suggestions of the young.
Secondly, since the young will inherit the mess that we leave behind, they have a right to play some part in defining the shape of that mess. Moreover, many young people are perfectly capable of both inventing sensible projects and of carrying them through with a little help from people who are old enough to have met some of the problems before. My experience with InterAction many years ago, and with Community Service Volunteers to this day, has shown me just how effective, responsible and imaginative young people can be if they are encouraged to be so.
Thirdly, our democracy is threatened by many pressures, but that of voter apathy is certainly important. In the 18 to 24-year-old age group, 32 per cent. are judged not to have voted at the last election. The British Youth Council survey in December 1997 found that 84 per cent. of young people believed that politicians do not listen to their concerns. A huge 81 per cent. said that they did not learn enough about politics at school, and asked for it to be included in the national curriculum.
Just before the general election, I chaired a gathering in Coventry cathedral, entitled "Heirs to the Millennium", which was attended by 750 people, including more than 200 young people. Those young people crafted a youth manifesto, which we presented to the main political parties. One of the most articulate of the young people said:
The organisers
of the event
deserve to be congratulated but I don't believe anything will change. In 20 years' time, our successors will be standing here still saying that nobody pays any attention to what we say.
I do not want to be part of that cynicism. I believe that we can and should change the situation.
I draw some encouragement from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who made clear to the all-party children group yesterday that the Government have begun to realise that the opinions and ideas of young people leaving care are at least as valuable as those of the adults who have made such a mess of looking after them. I understand that about 40 pieces of legislation affecting

young people have either been passed already or are in the pipeline. I wonder how much consultation there has been with the beneficiaries of such energetic law making.
If we want to find out how to deal with truants, playground bullies or the spreading drug culture, we should talk to those who are in the thick of it: the victims and, perhaps, even the perpetrators. I have seen enough successful peer-group teaching about sex, drugs, racism and bullying to know just how responsible 17-year-olds are when entrusted with the task of educating their juniors. Even more important, I know how much better they are at it than even young teachers.
It is true that we have a Minister who is responsible for youth affairs, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). The only problem is that he is also responsible for information technology, constitutional reform, legal issues, green issues and public-private partnerships. What sort of message does that send our young people about the priority that they command in government?
We live in a vastly different world from that in which I grew up. For almost half the young population, full-time employment does not begin until well into their 20s, yet we treat most students as if they had no role to play in the running of their country. We neither consult them nor give them tasks to perform. A handful show what they can do by running student unions with huge budgets or by taking a year out to challenge themselves with responsibilities far greater than they can hope to shoulder at home.
There are plenty of reports to back me up. The Advisory Centre for Education has published "Children's Voices in School Matters" and the Gulbenkian Foundation's inquiry into "Effective Government Structures for Children" made a powerful case for a more effective mechanism for gathering young people's views and doing something about them. Bernard Crick's committee on education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy is about its task as I speak, but children and young people have no direct political power, and play no direct part in the political process. Even when report after report shows the value of participation, nothing is done. The cost of that exclusion is recognisably high and will get higher.
I am calling for a national youth parliament, composed of representatives from local youth forums or councils registered by a certain date. I realise that that will exclude many, but we have to start somewhere. If we wait until we find the perfect inclusive mechanism, we shall wait for ever. I suggest that a representative could sit until the day before their 19th birthday. That is an arbitrary cut-off, but at least those over 18 are allowed to vote, even if they are not allowed to stand for Parliament. I hope that the local representatives will include a wide range of young people and will not be confined to school pupils. One group that could usefully be represented is that which includes those who have been in local authority care.
I have drawn heavily on the proposals put to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—of which I am a trustee—by Kate Parish, whose report is an excellent starting point. The Parliament should sit only once a year to start with. I propose that, subject to your approval, Madam Speaker, it might sit here during a recess. It would set its own agenda, centred


on what the young wanted to discuss, not issues foisted on them by an older generation. Ministers would be required to respond in proper form to the proposals emanating from the parliament. Whether they should do so from the Dispatch Box or in writing is a matter for consideration.
In common with the youth parliament structures already existing in areas such as British Columbia and Tasmania, I propose that the objectives of our youth parliament should be: to provide a forum for young people to express their views on issues of relevance to them; to produce a UK youth manifesto that would raise concerns to be acted on by the Government and taken into account in party manifestos; to produce local manifestos to develop an interest in the parliamentary system by combining it with practical experience; to assist in the development of the skills and self-esteem of individual participants; and to give youth concerns more visibility.
I am not alone in my ambition. Among the forces ranged on my side are the NSPCC, the National Childrens Bureau, Save the Children Fund, the Citizenship Foundation, the British Youth Council and the YMCA. Setting up such a parliament would meet several objectives. First, we would give a considerable boost to local youth councils, which would see that their voices could truly be heard in Westminster. Secondly, we would create a mechanism that would allow Government proposals to be discussed by those whom they affected. Thirdly, we would create an opportunity for young people to break out of the disenchantment with the political process that will one day put the whole of our democracy at risk.
I am not allowed to discuss finance in such a Bill. I merely observe that, unless proposals have a real budget, they seldom get anywhere. The record of local authorities around the country is not so wonderful that they can properly refuse to risk the relatively tiny sums that local youth councils need. There are many councils that make me feel safer with a 17-year-old in charge of the finances than with the present Treasury team. I hope that the Government will take the Bill seriously and allow it to progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Giles Radice and Mr. Anthony Steen.

YOUTH PARLIAMENT

Mr. Andrew Rowe accordingly presented a Bill to establish a parliament of young people in the United Kingdom; to make provisions for the powers and functions of that parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 199].

Orders of the Day — Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF THE GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND

Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 3, leave out lines 15 to 26 and insert—
'(2) Those matters are:

(a) the standards of professional conduct of teachers;
(b) the standards of medical fitness required to teach;
(c) the powers which it needs to perform its functions under section 2 of this Act;
(d) recruitment to the teaching profession;
(e) the training and career development of teachers;
(f) methods of teaching;
(g) methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers; and
(h) methods of assessing the effectiveness of different methods of teaching.'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 115, in page 3, leave out lines 35 and 36.
Government amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 11.

Mrs. May: Amendments Nos. 120 and 115, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and myself, go to the heart of chapter I of the Bill, which deals with setting up General Teaching Councils. The amendments concern the powers that such a council should have, its responsibilities and its ultimate functions.
The issue has been the subject of much debate both in another place and at the various stages of the Bill. The Government have moved slightly, and clause 2(2) as it now stands is different from the provision in the original Bill. An amendment was made in another place, and although the Government defeated it in Committee in this House, they chose to take part of the recommendation in the amendment tabled in another place into subsection (2).
The Government have moved a little way, but they need to move further. Amendments Nos. 120 and 115 probe them further about exactly what they believe the General Teaching Council is being set up to do. We are probing for clarification, especially about the advice that it will give the Secretary of State—such as whether it should be general and what its nature should be.
The General Teaching Council should be the body that protects the professional status of the teaching profession. I believe that, if it established, enhanced, maintained and improved teachers' professional standing, teachers would


welcome it. However, I fear that the body proposed in the Bill will not be a General Teaching Council that will fulfil those functions.
The Government are missing a golden opportunity to reinstate the professional status of teachers and to bring about the recognition of that status. That is important, because we have a growing crisis in our schools—a crisis of teacher supply and recruitment. Any hon. Member who visits schools in his or her constituency, as I have been doing since I was elected, will hear head teachers talk about the difficulty of finding teachers with particular educational qualifications, especially in certain subjects. Science is a good example. I was in a school in my constituency last Friday, and concern was expressed about the difficulty of obtaining a qualified physics teacher.
There is also concern about the fact that when any post, especially a senior post such as that of head teacher, is advertised, a limited number of people come forward. The Government could help to address that problem through the General Teaching Council that they are to set up. Sadly, however, the GTC that they propose in the Bill will not meet that requirement.
Some might say that to refer to a crisis in our schools is rather too emotive, but that is not my description. The report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment on teacher recruitment, published last autumn, said:
Many of the submissions to our inquiry, and to that of the previous Committee, argued that there was a 'recruitment crisis' in initial teacher training. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals … stated that 'the recruitment crisis in initial teacher training continues to escalate', while Mr Nigel Gates, until recently the admissions tutor for a university ITT course, referred to 'a rapidly deepening and very real crisis'. A similar phrase was used by the Secondary Heads Association. The NUT argued that, as 'every single indicator measures in a negative way', there was a 'crisis' in teacher supply.
The Select Committee itself came to the conclusion that its inquiry
leads us to believe that the situation has deteriorated and that the Government must act to prevent serious shortages worsening.
Some might ask why the establishment of a General Teaching Council can play a role in helping with the developing crisis in our schools. The answer is best given by my experience in talking to some student teachers in the school in my constituency that I visited last Friday. I asked what had brought them into the teaching profession. One student was rare, in that he was a maths graduate coming into teaching. Maths graduates are really needed—there is a paucity of them. I asked why they thought that people were put off coming into teaching. Pay was discussed, but some said it was not just about pay—it was about the image of teaching, how teachers were recognised and whether or not they had professional status.
In introducing the General Teaching Council, the Government could have created a body which would truly have nurtured the professional status of teachers and would have helped to overcome the image problems that the student teachers identified as one of the real reasons why people are not coming into the profession and why we have this growing crisis in our schools.
At first sight, it seemed that the Government were going to fulfil that demand. In a debate in another place, the noble Baroness Blackstone said:
Teachers are our greatest educational resource. Teachers, in particular, head teachers, are at the heart of our drive to raise standards.
She went on to say that the Government
are determined to restore pride and professionalism to the teaching profession. There has long been agreement that a key element in this is the establishment of a general teaching council … An effective GTC will be an engine for change and a driving force in our new deal for teachers."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 1997; Vol. 584, c. 253–55.]
Sadly, the Bill—and clause 2 in particular, on the functions of the General Teaching Council—shows that the Government have failed to follow even their own words of expectation about what the General Teaching Council should do to provide for the professional status of teachers. They have not delivered on the early promise. That is why we are probing the Government with amendments Nos. 120 and 115.
The concerns have not been raised only by the Opposition. Information has been sent to me by a number of outside organisations—for example, the Local Government Association, which, in a paper that it sent to a number of hon. Members, said that it
has a concern that the GTC operates, and is seen to operate, independently.
As we know from the clause—and from the Bill in general—the GTC will be a body which primarily advises the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will very much oversee the work of the GTC. It will be far from independent, as the LGA requires.
The LGA went on to say that, if the GTC was to be successful in giving teachers "a clear professional voice"—what the Minister for School Standards himself has said the GTC should provide—
the Secretary of State, and other stakeholders … will have to demonstrate their trust in the profession by giving, and being seen to give, real powers to the GTC.
I suggest that a power merely to give the Secretary of State general advice is not the sort of power that the LGA was thinking of in terms of developing the General Teaching Council to maintain and protect the professionalism of the teaching profession.
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers said:
From … concern for the quality of education for all learners comes our commitment that a General Teaching Council should establish agreed professional standards.
It said that it wanted the public to be
assured that these standards and that advice are genuinely independent of any constraints to quality that may for pragmatic, economic or political reasons be proposed by Government and gain the professional respect to act as a single voice for the teaching profession.
Similarly, the Association of University Teachers said that it
would like to see the GTC provided with executive powers rather than advisory powers".
Sadly, the clause will not achieve those results.
The Government have shown yet again that the reality of their proposals does not live up to the rhetoric. The Minister for School Standards can say all that he wants about the need to establish a clear professional voice for


teachers and to restore morale for teachers, who for too long have had too little say in determining the shape and future of their profession—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): Hear, hear.

Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." I suggest that he thinks about the Government's proposals very carefully, as they will not restore morale by providing teachers with a clear professional voice. The body that the Government are proposing will largely be a talking shop to maintain the register of teachers; it will be subservient to the Secretary of State.
Like so many of the Government's education policies, the proposals for the General Teaching Council will not give powers to people who are involved in education—they will not give teachers powers over their profession—but will ensure that powers are vested at the centre in the Secretary of State. The Government are missing an opportunity to create what is gravely needed—an independent council with real powers to maintain and enhance standards in the teaching profession.
Amendment No. 115 would delete clause 2(6), which states:
Any advice given by the Council … shall be advice of a general nature.
I hope that our concerns about the council will be echoed by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who said in Committee:
Matters such as standards of teaching, the conduct of teachers and medical fitness to teach are crucial. We do not want the GTC to give general advice on those, but specific and detailed advice … If the GTC is to play its role in raising standards, its advice needs to be clear and specific.
In response, the Minister for School Standards said that, if the clause did not refer to general advice,
there would be a danger that the general teaching council's comments would refer to individual teachers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pointed out:
The Minister is arguing for such comments to be anonymous; I am not sure why he is arguing that they must be general."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 2 April 1998; c. 44–47.]
There is a very real difference. I hope that the Government will confirm today not that, as the Minister suggested in Committee, it will be open to the council to provide specific—rather than merely general—advice, but that they expect the council to give such advice.
I suggest that the Minister thinks about that carefully. If he wants the General Teaching Council to be able to help the teaching profession to regain its status and to improve its image, and if he is to find a way in which to encourage young people—and others, perhaps later in their careers—to enter the teaching profession, he must ensure that teaching is regarded as a proper profession. In establishing the council, the Government have the opportunity to ensure that that happens.
Sadly, the Government are missing that opportunity—they are simply setting up a body with the name of General Teaching Council so that they can say, "We did it. We promised that we would set up a general teaching

council and we have. So there is no problem, is there? The teaching profession is okay, professional status is assured and the GTC is in place."
The reality is that, by establishing a body that will be seen not to have any teeth and not to be having the effect that they proclaimed it would have, the Government could be setting back the necessary work to re-establish the professional status of teachers in everyone's eyes. One concern is that the Government may well say, "It's all very well talking about the GTC in its early stages; we see it as an evolutionary body that might in due course take on other powers," but it will require primary legislation to change the body set up in the Bill, as has become clear in a number of the Minister's answers. So, far from being merely an evolutionary way forward, the Government are establishing what they believe to be appropriate for the GTC.
4 pm
Amendment No. 120 would introduce within the list of matters on which the GTC can advise the Secretary of State, in addition to the standards of professional conduct of teachers, the standards of medical fitness required and recruitment to the profession, methods of teaching and methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers. Assessment of performance is becoming increasingly important and it is a matter about which there is concern within the profession—genuine concern about how appraisal systems are operating and, in particular, how appraisals undertaken through the medium of the inspection of any school are being undertaken. A number of teachers have raised that issue with me.
If the General Teaching Council is truly to be a body for and of the profession, it should have the opportunity to look into methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers and making recommendations. It is more important for it to be an independent body that establishes those methods and the professional standing of the teaching profession, but sadly the Government are not going down that route. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at the possibility of at least including within the GTC's remit the recommendation that it should study methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers.
The amendment would also introduce the power for the GTC to advise on methods of assessing the effectiveness of different methods of teaching. That is an area about which there is always much dispute between those who favour particular teaching methods. To suggest that the GTC has nothing to say on that issue, as appears to be the case judging by the original proposals in the Bill, is to miss the opportunity that setting up such a body offers to support the teaching profession. In his reply, I hope that the Minister will deal with those issues and say why the Government have so far not been willing to take them on board within the powers of the GTC.
As I said, that body, as it is being set up, will not fulfil the requirement out there in the education system and the education sector—the real feeling among teachers that they need to be treated as a profession and that the GTC could be the answer to that problem. I know that from talking with teachers about the GTC. Yet again, the Government have, sadly, failed to deliver. In this, as in so many other areas, the reality of their proposals does not match their rhetoric.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Not one Scot was involved in the Standing Committee, which was no one's fault—it was the fault neither of the Whips nor of the Selection Select Committee, but merely the way things happened. It does entitle me to ask succinctly a question that I believe to be relevant to the Bill, because we are still one country, are we not? I have given notice of the question to the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, who was in his place a moment ago.
What is the latest estimate of the shortage of teachers of physics, to a lesser extent of chemistry, and certainly of maths, in Scotland? Manpower advance prognostication is difficult at the best of times, and a few years ago it was generally thought that there was a surplus of teachers. I understand that the surplus may, over a year or two, have turned suddenly into a deficit. I am asking only for the facts, which are not very different from those in England.

Mr. John Hayes: It is perhaps a truism to say that teachers feel undervalued, but that truism bears some relation to the fact that the status of teachers has declined socially and culturally over a generation or so. That may be due to many things, some of which the amendments address. It may be that what was once perceived as a vocation is now seen as a job. It may be because of a general challenge to authority figures, or it may be partly the result of the changing nature of teaching and learning, and the changing role of the teacher.
It is certainly true that teachers need to have their value recognised once again. Their professional standards must be high, and must be recognised as such by society. To achieve that, the General Teaching Council should be independent and professional and able to deliver judgments on the competence of individual teachers and on the quality of teaching per se. Unfortunately, the Government's proposals do not satisfy those criteria.
The GTC will be a creature of the Government rather than a genuinely independent professional body able to make objective assessments both of teachers and on more general teaching issues. In that sense, the proposals are a missed opportunity, and they will be seen to be so by teachers and by history. We had a real opportunity to have a renaissance in the social and professional status of teachers. I would have welcomed that, as teachers are vital.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, it is time that people in positions of authority recognised, and stated, that teachers make a vital contribution to our children, our nation and our future. I am unashamed to make such a comment; too often, we forget our teachers, who are genuine heroes. Duty and self-sacrifice, the hallmarks of good teachers, are unfashionable values; perhaps we place more emphasis on starry glamour, although I will say no more about that, and do not intend to point a finger in any particular direction.
The GTC offers an opportunity to re-evaluate the role of teachers, to restate the importance of teaching and to raise professional standards. Our amendments would make that happen by increasing the GTC's independence from Government, because it must not be seen as a creature of the Government. I hope that the House will

support the amendments if they care as much as my colleagues and I do about teaching, learning and the teaching profession.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I had the opportunity to speak on the General Teaching Council on Second Reading, and it does not seem nearly three months since then. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for taking us through what occurred in Standing Committee; I have read the proceedings, but I did not immediately understand them, and I was not a member of that Committee, so I am catching up. From what she said on Second Reading and in Committee, I understand the motivation for the amendment that she moved so well.
On Second Reading, I and others, not least Labour Members, made the point, powerfully reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), that the creation of the General Teaching Council was an opportunity to give recognition and status to the teaching profession, with the council perceived not simply as a creature of the Government but, to some extent, as a creature of the teaching profession. I qualify that by noting that it is important that, although most of the council's membership should be drawn from the teaching profession, it should include people with an interest in the quality of teaching, such as parents and employers.
In Committee, it was sensibly noted that those who teach in further or higher education should be able to see that the General Teaching Council, through the school system, is delivering young adults capable of benefiting to the greatest possible extent as they move into further or higher education. That is not the subject of these amendments, so I will not dwell on it, but the Government could have done more to achieve that through the council's composition.
The Government could have done more to seek to use the General Teaching Council as a body responsible for, and capable of, promoting teaching as a profession. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made those points in Standing Committee, and may do so again. As the Government have not done those things, our amendments would help to reinforce and expand the council's role by giving it some responsibility for giving advice, which would help the teaching profession to regard it as a body that enjoys the status it demands of the council. The Local Government Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, has sought such a role for the council.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, matters such as methods of teaching, assessment of the performance of teachers and the vexed question of assessing the effectiveness of different methods of teaching are important issues that go to the heart of the quality of teaching and of our school system. As the General Teaching Council has no specific responsibility to act on those issues, many in the teaching profession and outside will regard it as an essentially bureaucratic body exercising a bureaucratic function, perhaps usefully in respect of medical fitness and related matters concerning the conduct and dismissal of teachers. It will not be regarded as acting positively and proactively in the system to help to deliver higher-quality teaching and to raise the status and competence of the profession.
I say that advisedly, because I do not regard that exclusively as the role of the council, even if the amendments are passed. Whatever happens, there are separate roles. First, the General Teaching Council is a statutory body for giving advice to the Secretary of State and others as necessary in bringing together teachers and those with interests in the teaching profession and the school system. Secondly, it is important to recognise that there should be a self-regulatory body in the teaching profession responsible for self-promotion to try to improve the quality of teaching.
On Second Reading, I asked the Government to endorse—I again ask for positive comment—the initiation of a college of teachers whose aims would be to promote the teaching profession, to give its members a network of support, to forge relations with other learned professions and to advise the Government from an independent stance on professional issues.
I know that, in Standing Committee, reference was made to the desirability of not, at this stage, drawing exact parallels between the GTC and the General Medical Council, or between the college of teachers and the royal colleges in the medical profession, with which I am a little more familiar than with the teaching profession. Even so, the structure of institutions created within the medical profession over a far longer period has merit, and, even if this is not a case of moving at one leap to a structure for the teaching profession that has exactly the same characteristics, there is every reason to give oneself the flexibility to move in that direction.
I was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead had to chastise the Government for their fixed sense, at this stage, of what the responsibilities of the GTC should be and for not building in flexibility. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to try, through the amendment, to expand the GTC's role and increase the flexibility available to it. In time, both that body, with an expanded role, and a college of teachers, with an independent, teacher-led role, might give the teaching profession the greater status that it richly deserves.

Madam Speaker: Mr.—

Mr. Graham Brady: Brady.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Brady.

Mr. Brady: I am clearly not speaking often enough in the Chamber. I shall endeavour to put that right, with your help, support and encouragement, Madam Speaker.
My hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) wisely referred to the importance of building in a degree of flexibility to enable the GTC to evolve over time and allow it to assume the role and functions that Opposition Members and, I suspect, Ministers want.
The Minister for School Standards will recall that, in another Standing Committee of which we were both members, one of his colleagues said that I had appeared to be painting a picture of Altrincham and Sale, West as

a sort of educational nirvana. I plead guilty to that charge, because we are in many ways as close to that stage as can be achieved. My constituency contains some extremely good schools, and, partly because of their local standing and the results that they achieve, there is higher morale among the members of the teaching profession in my constituency than in many other areas.
On Monday, I had an interesting discussion on the subject of the GTC with teachers at a school in my constituency. I have to report to the Minister that their view—an unfortunate one, which highlights the Bill's failure—is that the proposed GTC is a completely wasteful bureaucracy and an empty shell, which offers them nothing and which might load on extra bureaucracy and burdens. That is not to mention the fact that it might load extra costs on teachers by levying a compulsory registration fee on those becoming members of the GTC, which would have to be paid alongside their teaching union membership fees.
I suspect that the reason why so little has been made of the GTC during the Bill's passage lies in some of the tensions in respect of the teaching unions and the question of how the teaching profession should redefine itself—whether it should move in the direction of the medical profession and become a proper self-regulating profession which would not take strike action and in which the role of trade unions would diminish as the role of the GTC and other self-regulatory bodies increased. The direction that the Bill appears to set may be laudable, but I fear that the Minister for School Standards has suffered a loss of courage in drafting the specific provisions in the Bill.

Dr. Howells: Impossible.

Mr. Brady: The Bill does not make proper provision for the GTC to assume the role of a genuine self-regulatory body. I have the highest regard for the Minister of State, but he occasionally marches in a slightly different direction from that taken by other Labour Members, so it is understandable that he is sometimes less than entirely open about his ultimate objectives.
The movement away from some of the LEA powers that have caused so much damage to many schools throughout the country has been whole-heartedly welcomed in many schools and by many teachers. The Minister should take heart from that. [Interruption.]
The Under-Secretary mutters about the impossibility of a failure of courage on the part of his hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, but the Minister should take heart from the proposal, which represents an opportunity for the Government to do something of value for the teaching profession and to enhance the standing of the profession. The opportunity is sadly missed in the detail of the General Teaching Council in the Bill.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): Taking my courage into my hands, I shall deal first with the three Government amendments, which are technical, and then with the meat of the debate—the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
Amendment No. 11 is a simple amendment which will allow the costs incurred as a result of a teacher being a member of a General Teaching Council to be borne in


exceptional circumstances by the General Teaching Council. We are confident that, in most cases, the costs of an individual teacher and the time necessary for the teacher to attend the GTC can be met from the school's budget. Indeed, many schools would see it as a benefit if a member of their teaching staff served on the GTC. The teacher would gain a depth of experience as a result of exchanging views with other professionals, and benefits would accrue not only to the teacher, but to the school.
However, amendment No. 11 recognises that the burden of those costs may be too great for some schools—for example, a small rural primary school with perhaps only two or three members of staff would have to provide supply cover if one of the teachers was away attending meetings of the GTC. We would not want to place that burden on the relatively small budget of such a school. The amendment would allow those costs to be met by the GTC, which we consider an appropriate way forward.
Amendment No. 82 closes one of the loopholes which we have identified. If a teacher is ineligible to register as a teacher—for example, in Scotland or Northern Ireland, having been disqualified because of activities or conduct in one of those countries—he or she should be disqualified from registering as a teacher under the General Teaching Council for England or for Wales. Amendment No. 82 achieves that objective.
Amendment No. 83 is a purely technical amendment which brings clause 3 into line with clause 19. As those three Government amendments are uncontroversial, I hope that they will meet with the approval of the House.
Like the hon. Member for Maidenhead, I visit many schools. Indeed, I had the pleasure of visiting a school in her constituency as a guest at its prize-giving evening—a very good school it was, and I was pleased to discharge that responsibility.
Many teachers are doing a good job, often in difficult circumstances. That was not said often enough by the previous Government, but I am glad to acknowledge it on behalf of the Government. One of our reasons for establishing a General Teaching Council is to give the profession a unified voice. The GTC will be a body independent of the Government, but will work with them to raise standards in our schools.
That is the teachers' objective and the Government's goal. Opposition Members speak about the roads down which the Government are travelling. The Government are united in their desire to raise standards in our schools—not just in a few schools, but in all our schools, for all our children. That will require a sea change in thinking about our school system. At present, far too many schools are not offering the quality of education that our children deserve. It is the Government's responsibility to do what we can to raise standards, and we shall do precisely that.
One of the key ways in which we can raise standards in our schools is to ensure that the quality of teaching is improved. We can achieve that by establishing a General Teaching Council, which will raise teachers' morale and give them a voice. That is why we are keen that most of the council's members should have teaching experience and should only recently have left classroom teaching.
The two Opposition amendments would not add much to the Bill, and one—No. 115—is potentially damaging. Amendment No. 120 would change the functions that the General Teaching Council will carry out by adding to the

list in clause 2(2) two new functions: the assessment of performance of individual teachers and the assessment of the effectiveness of different methods of teaching.
It may help the hon. Member for Maidenhead to know that our legal advice is that the assessment of the performance of individual teachers is covered by the references to standards of teaching in clause 2(2)(a) and to the training, career development and performance management of teachers in clause 2(2)(d). Our legal advisers' view is that the assessment of the effectiveness of different methods of teaching is also covered by the reference to standards of teaching in clause 2(2)(a). We have therefore dealt with the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady in moving the amendment on behalf of the Opposition.
On amendment No. 115, it is simply untrue to say that the Bill does not give powers to the General Teaching Council. As we said yesterday, we shall give the council a power of regulation over individuals who go on the register as qualified teachers. The council will have the power to strike off that register people who are professionally incompetent or who have been involved in serious professional misconduct. However, it is important to draw a line between that responsibility and the council's need to advise the Secretary of State on how certain functions should be discharged.
We are drawing a clear distinction between the General Teaching Council's power of regulation over the register and its advisory role in addressing broader teaching issues of how standards are to be raised in our schools. We do not want the council to be drawn into disputes involving individual teachers, which is why it is important to retain clause 2(6), which provides that the advice given by the council should be of a general nature. That will allow the council to use case studies and individual examples to demonstrate practical ways in which the Secretary of State may want to pursue policy objectives. We believe that the present wording will do that, and will not create the confusion that amendment No. 115 would.
I listened with interest—as I did on Second Reading—to the argument by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in favour of founding a college of teachers. There is a danger of duplication. We are about to establish a General Teaching Council. If a college of teachers came on the scene, how would that complement the work undertaken by the Teacher Training Agency, which is responsible for recruitment, the promotion of teaching as a profession and the provision of teacher training courses? How would a college of teachers link with the General Teaching Council? There is a danger that, at this time, a college of teachers would not be helpful in developing a clear and coherent vision of the progress that we want.
4.30 pm
The hon. Member for Maidenhead spoke about the crisis in the supply of teachers. There is indeed a crisis, but it was not created in the past 13 months. The Government are tackling the genuine problems in teacher recruitment, which were created by year after year of indifference and complacency by soft Governments, representing the party to which the hon. Lady belongs.
The previous Government's incompetent handling of the teachers' pension fund helped to cause the crisis in teacher numbers. Last year, there was a massive exodus


of teachers, often with considerable experience—good teachers, who did not want to leave the profession, but who were forced out of because the guillotine came down in terms of pension arrangements. Thousands of good teachers were lost to the profession, and to our children.
Today, we hear Conservative plaudits about a General Teaching Council, but when the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Sir Malcolm Thornton, introduced a private Member's Bill to establish a general teaching council, supported by hon. Members now in government and by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Conservative Government Whips—one of whom was the present shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—killed it off. They did so not 10 years ago, not 18 years ago, but in the past three years. When Conservative Members say that the General Teaching Council will play an important role in establishing and re-creating the teaching profession as something that should be valued, people should bear in mind their record, which has condemned teachers to lacking a voice to speak on their behalf.
The Government are taking action. Within months of taking office, we made the establishment of a General Teaching Council a commitment in our White Paper. It appeared in the Bill, and we are now introducing legislation to put it into effect.
The present Government do value teaching as a profession.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Minister about the teachers who left prematurely, often against their will, because of the pension arrangements? Is there any chance of re-entry, even for three to five years, in the present situation, for those who realise that it may have been a mistake to leave—they may have been forced to leave, incidentally—because of the pension arrangements? Is there any possibility of arrangements being made for them to return, even for a short time, as some of them would wish to do, having been away from teaching for a year, and having found that there is no other work for those of their age?

Mr. Byers: As always, my hon. Friend raises a consideration that is important and relevant to the debate. We must consider how to encourage people to return to the teaching profession. The Government are mindful of the fact that, currently, the number of qualified teachers who are not teaching—more than 400,000—exceeds the number of those teaching. That number has increased in the past 12 months because of the exodus of teachers as a result of pension fund changes. My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I shall consider whether there are ways of attracting people back into the teaching profession. There may be difficulties concerning individual pension arrangements, but the matter certainly deserves detailed consideration.
The Government value teachers and recognise that they play a vital role in offering our children the best quality education. The General Teaching Council will fulfil the important role of speaking on behalf of the teaching profession. That view is fragmented at present, and the General Teaching Council will put the interests of the profession first and raise standards.
The most disappointing aspect of the speech by the hon. Member for Maidenhead is that it reflected only producer interests. The hon. Lady quoted time and again teacher unions and associations, and prayed in aid the Local Government Association, but she did not mention children and parents. It is a fine state of affairs when the Conservative spokesperson refers not to children and parents and to raising education standards, but to producer interests. That comes as no surprise. The Government recognise that we must put standards first, but the Opposition have not learnt the lessons of defeat. They are concerned about structures and producer interests, and they have lost the plot in education.
This Bill, coupled with the School Standards and Framework Bill, will raise standards and ensure that we provide children with the quality education that they deserve. We are turning our backs on past discussions about structures and the interests of the few. We are putting our children first and improving standards throughout the education system so that they may have the best possible start in life—good-quality education. We intend to deliver on that commitment, which is why I shall invite the House to reject amendments Nos. 120 and 115, and will push the three Government amendments.

Mrs. May: It is the Government who have lost the plot when it comes to education. They cannot raise standards in our schools if we do not have teachers in the classroom. The Government have failed to address that problem: they barely recognise the crisis in teacher recruitment and supply.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I have some figures regarding teacher recruitment. According to the figures for secondary initial teacher training targets and intake, there was a teacher deficit of 477 in 1993–94. In 1994–95, there was a deficit of 1,090; in 1995–96, the deficit was 1,774; and in 1996–97—the last year of the previous Government—there was a deficit of 2,920. Why did the previous Government fail to address that problem?

Mrs. May: This Government will make the problem worse, because they have done absolutely nothing to improve the situation. The Government are facing a problem with their class size pledge. That was identified by the Coopers and Lybrand report, which was commissioned by the Local Government Association—an organisation that is Labour-controlled, not Conservative-dominated. The report, which was published last week, clearly shows the problems facing the Government in terms of implementing their class size pledge—which they are failing completely to do at present.
One of their problems is that, if they are to reduce class sizes, they will have to increase the number of teachers standing up in front of children. Furthermore, if they are not to force children into schools that their parents do not want them to go to, which would deny parents their choice, they will have to increase the number of classes.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady knows that the class size pledge relates to primary school pupils and to infant classes in particular. Can she confirm—perhaps I shall be informing her—that primary initial teacher training targets for this year are over-subscribed, as they are for next year?

Mr. Don Foster: They have been for years.

Mrs. May: The Minister will have heard the sedentary intervention of hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), to whom I shall give way.

Mr. Foster: Is the hon. Lady aware that, over approximately the past 10 years, there have always been four times the number of applicants than places at that level? Is she also aware of leaks suggesting that the number of applicants for primary teacher training over the past 12 months is likely to be down by about 15 per cent?

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out those figures, and he is absolutely right about the normal over-subscription of such places. I have not seen the leaks, as he describes them, about a reduction in the latest primary school figure, but I look forward to the Minister giving the figure from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Byers: I shall give the figure now, although it has not yet been published. The 1998–99 courses have been over-subscribed, which means that we are in excess of the targets. In respect of the recruitment of the additional 1,500 teachers for this September to deliver our class size pledge, it might help the hon. Lady if she knew that the 65 authorities have met no problem whatever in recruiting those additional teachers to begin the process of cutting infant class sizes to meet our pledge.

Mrs. May: I suggest that, in future, the Minister listens to the comments made by those on the Conservative Front Bench and on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He referred to the over-subscription of courses but, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, that is not the point. The Minister will have to do better when he next comes to the Dispatch Box—but, as we know, he has problems with figures.
We have heard thoughtful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who apologises for having had to leave the Chamber before the close of debate on the amendments, and from my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), but it is noticeable that the only contribution from the Government Back Benches was that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who raised a particular issue relating to the position of certain teachers with certain qualifications in Scotland. It was also noticeable that the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, had been in the Chamber before the hon. Member for Linlithgow made his speech, but was absent during it. He has subsequently returned.

Mr. Damian Green: The Minister scuttled off.

Mrs. May: As my hon. Friend says, the Minister scuttled off.

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I assure the hon. Lady that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is my old friend, has access to me at all times. If I had had any idea that he would make a speech, I should have been impelled to stay in the Chamber to hang on his every word.

Mrs. May: I look forward to the hon. Member for Linlithgow receiving an answer to his question.
Despite the number of former teachers on the Labour Benches, we have heard no contribution other than that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow on the nature of the General Teaching Council and its importance in establishing the professional status of the teaching profession. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, we must recognise the contribution that teachers make. I am happy to echo the Minister's comment that many teachers in our schools do an excellent job, sometimes in difficult circumstances, but they often think that their contributions are not fully valued. I have mentioned the problem of restoring the image of the teaching profession so that teachers' contributions can be fully recognised and valued. That is what the debate is about, but the Government have missed the opportunity to deal with the issue, which is sad.
4.45 pm
We should be encouraging more people—be they young graduates, young people or older people who have had a career in industry, commerce or business and want to give something back and impart knowledge to young people—to go into schools and into the teaching profession. The Government are doing nothing to encourage that. So far, a working party, chaired by Lord Puttnam, has been set up—it is no surprise that one of its main contributions has been a cinema advertisement. As a student teacher said to me recently, that is not good enough, and it will not bring people into the teaching profession.
We need something more. The General Teaching Council was and still is an opportunity for the Government to ensure that we show teachers that they are truly valued. The Minister referred to the setting up of a single voice for the teaching profession. It is interesting that he emphasised that aspect: what positions does he think that the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers will take after the setting up of the GTC, and are all Labour Back Benchers as clear about his intentions for it as they might be? My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said that the Minister's thinking is not always entirely in line with that of other Labour Members, although, as we see time and again during statements and debates on education, he is generally out of line with his boss, the Secretary of State.
It is important that we value teachers, and for precisely that reason we want a GTC that will be of the profession and for the profession—a truly independent body that will establish standards for teaching and take them forward. The Minister said that we made no reference to standards in the classroom, but standards of teaching relate to standards in the classroom. We want to ensure that every child receives the appropriate education and that the standard of education is high. To achieve that, we must ensure that we have teachers of high calibre standing up in front of our children and delivering quality education.
Our proposals about the different powers of the GTC, especially in amendment No. 120, would have gone a long way to achieving that, although I note the Minister's comments about the Government's legal advice on it. In respect of amendment No. 115, I was sorry to hear him make the same argument on whether the GTC should give general advice. Yet again, he referred purely to individual teachers. We are not suggesting that advice given by the GTC to the Secretary of State would be about individual


teachers, but there is a difference between the GTC being able to provide specific advice and expecting it to provide specific advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire compared a college of teachers to the royal colleges in the medical profession, but I prefer to consider the GTC in relation to the royal colleges. The Government's proposals will not allow the body of the profession—the teachers themselves—to decide the professional standing and standards that teachers should use in the classroom in imparting knowledge to children. That is the end of the chain.

Mr. Wilson: Is that the end of the hon. Lady's speech?

Mrs. May: No, it is not quite the end of my speech, but almost. The hon. Gentleman will just have to wait a couple of minutes.
The quality of teachers is paramount in ensuring the quality of education that children in our schools receive. The Government have missed a real opportunity with the General Teaching Council. They could have established a body that played an important part in ensuring the continued professionalism of teachers and in enhancing professional standards. It is with some sadness that we view the Government's proposals but, having heard the Minister's response, I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS

Amendments made: No. 82, in page 4, line 14, at end insert 
',or
(d) (subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed by, or determined by the Secretary of State under, regulations) ineligible for registration as a teacher, or disqualified from being a teacher in any school, by virtue of any prescribed provision of the law of Scotland or of Northern Ireland.'.
No. 83, in page 4, line 15, after '(4)' insert
'Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed,'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 8

THE GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR WALES

Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 38, at end insert—
'(5) Subject to subsection (6), stamp duty shall not be chargeable in respect of any transfer to the General Teaching Council for Wales effected by virtue of subsection (3).
(6) No instrument (other than a statutory instrument) made or executed in pursuance of subsection (3) shall be treated as duly stamped unless—

(a) it is stamped with the duty to which it would, but for this section be liable, or
yy(b) it has, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with any duty or that it has been duly stamped.'.
I am tempted to speak for 50 minutes on stamp duty and the Welsh General Teaching Council. However, I shall say only that this is a technical amendment. We intend to establish a General Teaching Council for Wales and a General Teaching Council for England at the same time. The need to do so was a view overwhelmingly expressed in the consultation exercise carried out by the Welsh Office. However, amendment No. 10 is a safety measure in case that does not occur. It will allow an orderly transfer of the responsibilities and duties of a General Teaching Council if such a council needs to be established for Wales and for England. If they are to be separated at a later date, the amendment would allow that to happen as easily as possible.
I hope that, with that brief explanation, the House will agree to Government amendment No. 10.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 37, line 7, at end insert—
'(4) The Council may pay to the employer of a person who is a member of the Council (or a member of any of their committees but not a member of the Council) such compensation in respect of the loss of that person's services as the Secretary of State may determine.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Orders of the Day — New clause 4

SCOTTISH FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL: "RELEVANT BODY" FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 19(5) OF THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995

'.In section 19(6) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (meaning of "relevant body" for the purposes of section 19(5)), after paragraph (f) there shall be inserted—
(ff) the Scottish Further Education Funding Council established by an order under section 7(1) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;".'.—[Mr. Wilson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 60 and 64.

Mr. Wilson: I trust that my brief cameo appearance will be equally non-controversial. The new clause amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and arises from the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to establish, with effect from 1 January 1999, a Scottish Further Education Funding Council, as recommended by the Garrick committee, which was the Scottish committee of the Dearing committee.
At present, the 43 incorporated FE colleges in Scotland are exempt from certain anti-discrimination provisions in sections 19 to 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, by virtue of the fact that they are currently funded by my right hon. Friend. Educational institutions funded by a "relevant body" are also exempt. Unless the Scottish Further Education Funding Council is listed in section 19(6) of the 1995 Act as a "relevant body", those colleges will cease to be exempt.
New Clause 4 designates the Scottish Further Education Funding Council as a "relevant body" for the purposes of section 19(5) of the 1995 Act. The existing Further and Higher Education Funding Councils in England and Wales and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council are listed as relevant bodies in section 19(5), so adding the Scottish Further Education Funding Council to that list will ensure that the Scottish colleges remain exempt and are treated in the same way as other colleges and HE institutes elsewhere.
The amendments to clause 39 and the long title of the Bill are consequential to the insertion of new clause 4. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mrs. May: I do not intend to speak for any length of time on this issue. I note that the new clause would bring the proposed Scottish Further Education Funding Council into line with other similar bodies in the rest of the country. Clause 19(5) is in part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Government have today announced the timetable for introducing part III of the 1995 Act. That has been a long time coming, and many disability organisations have been concerned about how long it has taken the Government to make that announcement. I welcome the fact that it has finally been made today.

Mr. Wilson: I appreciate the hon. Lady's welcome for what has been done. However, I remind her that the Government have been in office for 13 months. Although she was not in the House previously—otherwise I am sure that all those measures would have been taken—the Tories were in power for 19 years.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New clause 7

UNAUTHORISED USE OF "UNIVERSITY" IN TITLE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, ETC.

'.—(1) A relevant institution in England or Wales shall not, when making available (or offering to make available) educational services, do so under a name which includes the word "university" unless the inclusion of that word in that name is—

(a) authorised by or by virtue of any Act or Royal Charter, or
(b) approved by the Privy Council for the purposes of this section.

(2) A person carrying on such an institution shall not, when making available (or offering to make available) educational services through the institution, use with reference either to himself or the institution a name which includes the word "university" unless the inclusion of that word in that name is authorised or approved as mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) Subsection (1) or (2) applies where the educational services are made available, or (as the case may be) the offer to make such services available is made, in any part of the United Kingdom.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) the inclusion of the word "university" in any name shall not be taken to be authorised by or by virtue of a Royal Charter relating to a university by reason of any provision of the Charter with respect to—

(a) the affiliation or association of other institutions to the university, or
(b) the accreditation by the university of educational services provided by other institutions.

(5) In approving the inclusion of the word "university" in any name for the purposes of this section the Privy Council shall have regard to the need to avoid names which are or may be confusing.

(6) The Privy Council's power of approval under subsection (1) or (2) shall not be exercisable in a case where the inclusion of the word "university" in the name in question may be authorised by virtue of any other Act or any Royal Charter.

(7) In this section—
relevant institution" means an institution within the further education sector or the higher education sector as defined by section 91(3) or (5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;
university", in the context of the reference in subsection (4) to a Royal Charter relating to a university, has the meaning given by section 90(3) of that Act.'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 9—University college, etc., not to be treated as university.
Government amendments Nos. 74 and 81.

Dr. Howells: The new clauses and amendments implement recommendations of the Dearing report on higher education. The Dearing committee recommended that the names and titles used by higher education institutions should be clear and consistent. At present, too many institutions are using unofficial titles that have not been properly authorised and have no clear meaning, which can be confusing to students and others. There is currently no clear statutory control over such unofficial titles.
The Dearing committee also believed that there was a place for a new category of "university college" for higher education institutions that fall short of full university status but have the power to award their own degrees. The Government accepted that recommendation, but there are some technical obstacles to implementing it under the present legislation in England and Wales.
We have decided to tackle both those problems by the new clauses and amendments. New clause 7 proposes a statutory duty on institutions in the further and higher education sectors in England and Wales not to supply or offer educational services under a name including the word "university" unless that name has been properly authorised. For that purpose, a name can be authorised by, or under, any statute or royal charter. Existing properly authorised names will not be affected.
To cover any cases to which the existing powers of authorisation do not apply, the Privy Council will, under the new clause, have an additional power of approval. For the avoidance of any dispute on that point, a name will not be regarded as authorised by, or under, a royal charter just because the charter allows a university to make


arrangements for affiliation, association or accreditation of other institutions. In our view, that does not, in itself, entitle a university to authorise other institutions to change the names under which they present themselves to the public to include the word "university".
The amendments create a statutory prohibition but not a criminal offence. Injunction proceedings may be brought in the courts to enforce the prohibition.
New clause 9 deals with a technical obstacle to the approval of the proposed new "university college" title in England and Wales. It does not affect the position of University college, Oxford or University college, London. The provisions cover institutions in England and Wales only, because that is where the problems exist. However, institutions in England and Wales invite applications from students throughout the United Kingdom, so the statutory prohibition of unauthorised names applies to the offer of educational services throughout the UK.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a few institutions in England have been awarding their own degrees and higher degrees without using the title "university" or "university college". I draw to his attention the Bolton institute of higher education, which has been seeking university status since 1991. I understand that a decision will be made in the next few weeks after a long campaign that has been particularly active recently. I remind my hon. Friend that we are looking forward to a positive decision, and if we receive one, the town of Bolton will go wild.

5 pm

Dr. Howells: The thought of Bolton going wild is almost too much. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on their sterling work on behalf of the Bolton institute of higher education. They have lobbied long and hard, and with good reason. As my hon. Friend has just told us, the matter is currently under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who will inform the institute of his conclusion soon.
We intend that the provisions that facilitate the approval of university college titles will be brought into operation quickly. The statutory prohibition on using unauthorised titles will be brought into operation after a reasonable interval to allow institutions to take it into account.
The new clauses and amendments will provide a clarification of the names and status of higher education institutions which has been needed for some time, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Phil Willis: I read the new clauses and amendments with interest, particularly the proposal that institutions that use the title "university" without proper authorisation will be outlawed. The university for industry is one of the Government's innovations. How do they propose to get around that—or are we to assume that the university for industry will be no more?

Dr. Howells: The university for industry essentially does not exist, except as a pilot in Sunderland, where

some superb work has been done by a combination of partners, including Sunderland university, Gateshead further education college and Sunderland training and enterprise council. They have used that as a working title. The university for industry is under consideration and has a pathfinder prospectus, but it has no legal standing. We shall examine its status in due course, but at the moment it is not a problem.

Mr. Green: The Opposition welcome the move to clear up any confusion in the exact status of our universities, as that could cause great damage both to students who may be misinformed and to reputable institutions. I am delighted that the Government are following the recommendations of the Dearing committee. Would that they had done so in other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: Some years ago, I had a constituency case involving a person from Singapore who felt deceived in respect of the quality and standing of a particular educational establishment in Britain. Is the new clause really about fraudulent presentations, or presentations that are not quite what they are made out to be, affecting foreign nationals?

Dr. Howells: The intention is not to give the impression that the sector is run through with fraudulent claims about the quality of courses delivered. There is a great deal of confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has just mentioned one excellent institute, and there are many others. Since the incorporation of higher education institutions and the intensification of competition for students, there is a great temptation for higher education institutions to assume that they can throw the cloak of a university across their shoulders. There has to be a guarantee of the quality of education offered by those institutions, and that is the primary reason for the new clause. However, where there are fraudulent claims, the Government clearly have a role to investigate them thoroughly and to ensure that justice is done.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New clause 9

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, ETC., NOT TO BE TREATED AS UNIVERSITY

'. At the end of section 77(4) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (use of "university" in title of institution), there shall be added ", unless in that name that word is immediately followed by the word "college" or "collegiate"." '.— [Dr. Howells.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New clause 10

CHARITABLE STATUS OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATIONS

'.—(1) After section 125 of the Education Reform Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
"Charitable status of a higher education corporation
125A.—(1) A higher education corporation shall be a charity which is an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.


(2) So far as it is a charity, any institution which—

(a) is administered by or on behalf of any higher education corporation, and
(b) is established for the general purposes of, or for any special purpose of or in connection with, that corporation,
shall also be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993. 
(3) In this section "charity" and "institution" have the same meaning as in the Charities Act 1993.
(2) After section 22 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 there shall be inserted—
"Charitable status of a further education corporation
22A.—(1) A further education corporation shall be a charity which is an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.
(2) So far as it is a charity, any institution which—

(a) is administered by or on behalf of any further education corporation, and
(b) is established for the general purposes of, or for any special purpose of or in connection with, that corporation,

shall also be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.
(3) In this section "charity" and "institution" have the same meaning as in the Charities Act 1993." '.—[Dr. Howells.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 78 to 80.

Dr. Howells: The new clause relates to the charitable status of further and higher education corporations. It confirms that they are exempt charities.
Provision to confer exempt charitable status on higher education corporations was first introduced by the previous Government in the Education Reform Act 1988. The same arrangements were made for further education corporations in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The status gives certain financial advantages, for example in respect of rate relief and VAT.
The new clause re-enacts existing provisions about the charitable status of further and higher education corporations on a consistent basis with comparable provisions in the Schools Standards and Framework Bill. It is essentially for avoidance of doubt that further and higher education corporations have exempt charitable status. It does not seek to do other than maintain the status quo, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New clause 11

COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYERS

'.—The Secretary of State may compensate employers for costs arising from the provisions in Part 3 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Green.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 106, in clause 29, page 28, line 26, at end insert
'subject to no employee being entitled automatically to more than eight hours of study or training leading to a relevant qualification.'.
No. 101, in page 28, line 30, at end insert
'but regulations made for the purpose of subsection (1)(c) may not provide for a standard of achievement higher than NVQ Level 2'.

Mr. Green: The proposals stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). We have heard much during our debates about the benefits of higher and further education being spread fairly among the individuals who pursue them; the firms that benefit from those individuals' efforts; and society as a whole. The costs, too, should be spread fairly. The purpose of new clause 11 is to achieve such a spread under part III of the Bill, which would otherwise place an onerous and damaging cost on businesses, particularly small businesses.
I should make it clear at the outset that, in moving the new clause and the amendments, we are not in any way being anti-training. We believe strongly that 16 and 17-year-olds should be fully trained to the level of which they are capable, to allow them to take a full place in the work force and play a full part in society, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of society.
The problem in this instance is that the Government's good intentions will have ill effects. In that respect, the proposals differ slightly from others in the Bill, where the Government seem to have started off with malevolent intentions. I do not accuse them of that in this case, but their proposals will have unintended ill consequences.
My text comes from the Minister for School Standards, who is regrettably no longer in his place, speaking at a conference in Germany, snappily entitled "Die Bekämpfung von Arbeitslosigkeit in Zeiten der Globalisierung", which I think means, "The problems of unemployment in times of globalisation". The Minister made several cogent points in that speech, telling his audience, safely many miles away from his colleagues in this country, that we must address the issue of non-wage costs; that the cost of over-regulation can be high; and that, in Germany, as I have often heard my right hon. and hon. Friends say—indeed, I have made the point myself—for every £100 spent on wages, an employer must add £31 in non-wage costs, whereas in Britain things are better, since non-wage costs are only £15. That is all entirely valid stuff.
The Minister went on to say:
We can no longer bury our head in the sand over this issue. Costs do matter. Over-regulation and high non-wage costs put European firms at a competitive disadvantage, and that costs jobs.
He is absolutely right. I therefore find it rather strange that he is putting his name to a Bill that will achieve precisely the ill effects of which he warns us.
If the Government will not accept our new clause and amendments, the problems that part III will bring about will be particularly acute for small businesses. The costs of the measure are estimated to be £130 million in a full year. Research from the Library shows that between 80,000 and 130,000 businesses could be affected by entitlement for time off for study or training. Of those businesses, 80 per cent. are likely to be employing fewer than 25 people.
Further research has shown that the £130 million, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred as the measure's likely cost, will be incurred if only 50 per cent. of eligible 16 or 17-year-olds decide to take up the opportunities. Therefore, costs could be much higher, and would fall disproportionately on the businesses that are less likely to be able to afford them.
If I may, I shall anticipate the response of the Under-Secretary. I dare say that he will produce a letter from the Confederation of British Industry.

Dr. Howells: I was not going to.

Mr. Green: Oh, well, I shall do the hon. Gentleman a favour, then. The CBI says that it accepts the need for something along the lines of the Government's proposal—indeed, that the cost will certainly be affordable for big businesses. Further down the scale, however, they may not be so.
The unreasonableness of the burden falling on small businesses is the reason for amendments Nos. 106 and 101, which try to inject some certainty into the level of obligation that small businesses will be letting themselves in for. How big a commitment are they meant to make? The Bill uses the potentially weasel word "reasonable" to decide the level of commitment. What may seem reasonable in the calm recesses of the Department for Education and Employment may not seem reasonable to a small firm employing one or two people which is struggling or which wishes to expand to employ more youngsters but which will find it more difficult to do so under the Bill.
The effect on small businesses could be serious; more serious still, however, is the potential effect on the very 16 and 17-year-olds whom part III is meant to help. We must ask ourselves what options a potential employer of 16 and 17-year-olds will have. The first option is to take on a long-term liability—giving employees the chance to take time off to study, which may not be practical in many businesses.
The second option is to reduce wages to make up the costs that the business will incur. That must be unpalatable to the Under-Secretary; he would not want the measure to be used as a weapon to drive down wages for 16 and 17-year-olds, although that could be one of the unintended consequences to which I referred.
The third option is even worse: no jobs will be offered at all to young people, who will find it increasingly difficult to get work. We all know that many new jobs are created in the small business sector, and anything that makes that more difficult seems actively counter-productive.
The real fear about the third option concerns its interaction with the Government's new deal. I pay tribute to Baroness Blackstone for devising an extremely good example to illustrate how interaction between the two policies could be deadly for the employment prospects of many 16 and 17-year-olds. She gives the example of three young people. The first is aged 17, and has five GCSEs and one national vocational qualification at level 2. The second is aged 18 and on the new deal welfare-to-work scheme. The third is aged 17 and has only one GCSE.
The first young person could be employed full time at a cost to the employer merely of a salary. The second comes to the employer with a weekly bounty paid for by the Government of £60, plus £700 up-front costs to cover training. The third—the one who is meant to be helped by the measure—comes to the employer at the cost of a full salary and with the right to have regular time off for education and training at the employer's expense, which could last for more than a year. What is any rational employer likely to do? He will not employ the person whom part III is meant to help. Under the two policies, the Government are effectively saying that it is fine for 18 or 19-year-olds to receive welfare-to-work subsidies, but it is not fine for 17-year-olds to do so. They will be less likely to be employed.

Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman is doing the reputation of small businesses no good. Many small businesses—he will know some of them; I certainly know many of them—are already investing a great deal in their young work force because they understand that, if they are to increase their competitiveness, they must explore that group's potential and quality. We are talking about 115,000 or 120,000 young people who very often go to what I am afraid to describe as dead-end jobs in firms that have no will to train them or help them to improve themselves—and so, indirectly, improve the firms. Surely progress must be made on that. That is what the Government are trying to do. Why does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that?

Mr. Green: I accept what the Government are trying to do; why does the Under-Secretary not recognise that they are failing? They are making it more difficult to employ such youngsters. I refer the Under-Secretary to the words of Baroness Blackstone, who has recognised the difficulty. She, as we know, has one of the finest minds on the Government Front Bench of either House, and has pointed out, with tremendous delicacy,
a potential issue here concerning the interaction of two important commitments".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 1998; Vol. 91, c. 33.]
Translated from the higher Mandarin that Baroness Blackstone is capable of speaking, that means, "There are two flatly contradictory commitments here, boys, but let us hope that nobody notices."
Unfortunately, people have noticed. More seriously, small businesses will notice. Precisely the small businesses to which the Under-Secretary referred, which may want to provide training for their employees, will find it more advantageous to provide such training under the new deal for those aged 18 or over than they will for 16 and 17-year-olds. Given the interaction between the two policies, any rational small business—even one deeply committed to training its work force, for all the good reasons that the Under-Secretary gave—will at best be less inclined than they would have been a year or two ago to take on 16 or 17-year-olds.
I hope that this is an unintended consequence and that the Government are merely guilty of incompetence. Anything worse would be impossible to contemplate. Our new clause tries to rescue the Government; it is generous of us to do so. It attempts to deal with the problems of costs affecting small businesses. It would not necessarily


mean an imposition on public spending because it is permissive—it allows the Secretary of State to spend money if he wishes to alleviate the costs for the businesses affected.
That does not need to be all the costs or at all times. At different phases of the economic cycle, small businesses will be more or less likely to want to take on new employees or be able to bear the costs of their taking time off. During an economic downturn, fewer jobs will be available, and small businesses will be more pressed and therefore less inclined to give young workers time off for training. At the margin, they will be less likely to take them on.
The Bill will make it doubly unlikely that 16 and 17-year-olds will gain access to the labour market during an economic downturn. That would be a tragedy. We all know that young workers tend to be the last in during times of growth and the first out when there is a downturn. The Government's measures would accelerate that undesirable process.
We want a proper spread of the costs among all those who benefit from training. We are not anti-training. We all recognise that it is vital for young people who are not in full-time education to receive training. However, the Bill will do the opposite of what the Government intend, which is why we have tabled the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. Andrew Reed: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), because I want to dismiss most of what he has said. His speech was a sad reflection on the Conservatives and a slur on the many small companies that play a vital role in training young people. That is particularly disappointing, because training benefits not just the companies concerned, but the country, giving us a better-educated work force.
Companies have spent £10.6 billion on training in the past year, but many small companies do nothing. They are sponging off the others. Why should the taxpayer yet again pick up the tab for the worst companies? We have had the same debate on the minimum wage. The taxpayer always seems to have to subsidise the worst companies—those that do the least training, those that provide the worst health and safety conditions and those that pay the worst wages. That is the spiral of inefficiency of small companies that do not want to invest in their work force. Every 16 and 17-year-old has the right to training.
The hon. Member for Ashford referred to the CBI briefing note. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will not refer to it, but I shall. It said that the CBI fully supported the idea of the right to study, and accepted the obligations that that placed on employers. That is right. There is a genuine partnership between the Government, employers and individuals. The Conservatives use words such as "compensation", "onerous", "dangerous" and "liability". Given that we are talking about one of the most positive measures in the Bill, such words are a sad reflection on the Conservative party.
The arguments about a possible conflict with the new deal fly in the face of all the evidence, as some of the training and enterprise council research shows, because the schemes relate to different groups of employees. We are talking about 115,000 or 120,000 young people who leave school and enter the work force with the opportunity to gain experience of work and continue their education.

Fewer than half the 16-year-olds who leave school and go into work have GNVQs or level 2 NVQs. For 19-year-olds, the figure is only 70 per cent.
The hon. Member for Ashford attempted to quote in German from a speech made some time ago by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. In Germany, there is a genuine understanding of the need for a firm to work in partnership with the individual and the Government to increase its productivity. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has spoken at recent seminars and conferences about the decline of British productivity relative to that of our European counterparts.
We need a genuine cultural shift to recognise that training—for young people in particular—is positive for the nation and for the companies concerned. Until we make that change, our productivity and our economy will suffer. Only when we can compete with the Germans and other European countries on the basis of the skills and productivity of the work force will we benefit.
I have worked in employment training on several Anglo-German schemes. On average, our 19-year-olds were at a level equivalent to that of 16 and 17-year-old Germans. We are two to three years behind in skills even at that stage, and we are falling ever further behind by not giving our 16 and 17-year-olds the right training.
I would like to make many other points, but I do not have much time. The measure that we are considering is positive. We want a highly skilled, high-wage, high-tech economy, not one that competes on low skills and low wages. That is one reason why the Conservatives lost the general election. Using words such as "onerous", "dangerous" and "liability" about one of the most positive measures in the Bill is a sad reflection on the Conservative party.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the new clause and amendments. I am frustrated, because we spoke at length in Committee about the impact on business, and put a strong case to the Government, explaining why we wanted to help them to ensure that there were no unintended casualties of the Bill. I remain unconvinced by some of the arguments that I have heard. We are talking about compulsory paid training being imposed on business, which causes difficulties.
We have theorised about the impact of the Government's measures during the debate. The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) that the impact of the new deal had not started yet. I am particularly keen to participate in the debate, because one of the pilot schemes for the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds is being run in my constituency. I have kept in close contact with the private company that has been selected to deliver the new deal in my area. Many hon. Members might think of Solihull as an affluent area, but it has pockets of serious deprivation and high unemployment among young people. Applying the new deal tests some of the theories that we have been discussing.
The impact on business, small or large, is not neutral. If an employee asks an employer to be allowed to go to a local college to obtain qualifications, there is an effect on company productivity. A replacement has to be found. There are recruitment costs and two staff appear, from the point of view of productivity, to be doing a job that was formerly done by one.
From my conversations with Capita, which is responsible for delivering the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds in Solihull, it is clear that there will be an impact on 16 and 17-year-olds. Capita is actively going out to local employers marketing the benefits of the new deal—the benefits of taking on the 18-to-24 age group for the job vacancies that arise. The 18 to 24-year-old will come with a £60 a week job subsidy and a £750 training golden handshake.
In contrast, the 16 to 17-year-old school leaver will walk in at the door looking for a job with less maturity and less job experience, if any. So it is not unrealistic for Capita to point out to me, as the local Member of Parliament, that it, too, sees the problem that the 16 to 17-year-olds will lose out.
One can theorise about the impact on 16 to 17-year-olds, but I strongly urge the Minister to examine the areas where the pilot schemes are in place, and find out what their impact is today. Businesses are in business to make money, to be profitable, to invest, to grow and to contribute to the local economy. Is the Bill asking them to pick up the tab for the failures of the education system?
5.30 pm
Subsection (c) of the new section 63A that clause 29 would insert into the Employment Rights Act 1996 mentions the need to provide educational opportunities for someone who
has not attained such standard
within the statutory education system. We know that that reflects the facts of life, and that some 16 to 17-year-olds—I have many in my constituency—become disenchanted and under-achieve in the education system. For them, school seems to have lost its meaning.
None the less, are we right, through the Bill, to ask businesses to turn round and pick up the cost for providing training at a basic level of attainment that we would otherwise have expected young people to achieve through the education system? I suggest that we are asking too much of businesses.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said about the economic cycle. The new deal is being launched in relatively good economic times. The new Government have a golden economic legacy, and thus a period in which to launch the initiative, the aims of which we share, to encourage young people off welfare and into work.
However, these are the good times. What will happen to such initiatives in the bad times, when the recessionary cycle bites? In my constituency and the surrounding areas, west midlands manufacturing is already in the bad times. The recession is already biting in manufacturing, making it even less likely that businesses large or small will take on young, relatively inexperienced employees.
It is not unreasonable to suggest compensating business for the impact of our asking it to take on the burden of the failures of the education system. It may surprise Labour Members to hear Conservatives asking for that, but we share—

Mr. Hilton Dawson: May I try to penetrate the cloud of gloom that the hon. Lady has

brought into the Chamber concerning what I regard as an inspiring initiative? Would she care to tell us about some of the benefits for business of the new deal, of employing young people and of giving opportunities to young people who may have been failed by the education system but who thrive in a work environment, given the proper support of a business sector which I would say has a greater commitment to the new deal than the hon. Lady has?

Mrs. Spelman: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has just joined us. We are talking not about the new deal but about its bearing on 16 to 17-year-olds' right to study. The point that we are making is about the impact of the introduction of the new deal on that group. I am not trying to be gloomy; I am trying to be practical.
The fact is that manufacturing is in recession, and it is looking hard at recruitment—

Mr. Reed: When manufacturing came out of recession in the early 1980s and in the early 1990s, was not one of the problems that the sector found a massive skills shortage, because the first thing that companies had done in the recession was to stop training? Is that not evidence of the need to continue training? Other European countries could pick themselves up out of recession more quickly because they continued to train during periods of recession.

Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman's intervention allows me to return to a point that he touched on in his speech. There are fundamental differences between the practical training available in this country and training in Germany for 16 to 17-year-olds, which he cited. In this country we do not have the equivalent of the Handelschule. Being a student of such matters, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is a clearly designated school of training for applied skills, of which there is no equivalent in the British educational tradition—although perhaps the Minister should consider the idea.
In Germany such schools remain within the education system. We are not looking at the German example and replicating their successful schools of practical training if we ask business to do the job for us. The hon. Gentleman should know that it is important to make a distinction between the British and the German education systems. Otherwise one could go away with the impression that German business was doing all that. As for our competitiveness, I remind the hon. Gentleman to look closely at unemployment rates among our young people and among those in countries such as Germany and France, because they are revealing.
I wholly endorse the new clause, which seeks to compensate business for bearing an unfair burden. Amendment No. 106, reasonably, imposes a time limit. Why should the requirement from business be open-ended? Our amendment comes close to the old concept of "one-day" day release—the idea of eight hours of study, for which the employer pays. For the requirement to be open-ended would be unreasonable.

Mrs. Diana Organ: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Spelman: I am just about to finish my speech.
In Committee we tried to help the Government by warning them—people can call it gloomy if they like, but I consider it realistic—that the 16 to 17-year-olds are a group of people in British society whom, probably unwittingly, they would disadvantage under this part of the Bill. The Prime Minister used the term "the Loaded generation" to define a group disaffected from statutory education. That is the group that is likely to suffer if the Bill is passed unamended. That is why I support the new clause and the amendments.

Valerie Davey: Yesterday, concern was expressed from all parts of the House that more young people from low-income families should be entering higher education, so I am disappointed that all those Members are not here this evening to celebrate this part of the Bill.
We are genuinely concerned to ensure that young people aged from 16 to 18 are encouraged into education and training. Rather than relating that subject to the new deal, I encourage Members to read the Select Committee report on further education published last week. If the Government take that on board, more young people will be encouraged and enabled to stay on at school between 16 and 18, and therefore to enter higher education.
However, that will not happen immediately, so young people going into work deserve that level of training, encouraged by the Government—

Mr. Hayes: Does the hon. Lady believe that society has an ethical responsibility to fund that, or should it be funded at random—by businesses and individuals, for example?

Valerie Davey: We certainly recommend that all corners of society should contribute. The hon. Gentleman may say that education is expensive, but I am sure that business and industry, and our community, would agree that lack of education is even more expensive. We need to encourage business to make its contribution, and I think that the Opposition have underestimated the contribution that that sector is already making, and the good will involved.
I shall now talk briefly about the two amendments. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) talked about eight hours, but the amendment does not say whether that means eight hours a week, a month or a year. The amendment is sloppily worded and should have been refined before being brought to the House.
Young people who, for whatever reason, do not stay on at school deserve to reach their potential at some level. Initially, we need to encourage those young people who have not reached GNVQ level 2 but, in the longer term, young people who are out of education but who are able to reach higher levels must be encouraged. Otherwise, there will be a discouragement to employing such people.
The amendments need to be rejected out of hand and we should support the original wording of the Bill, which is to be celebrated and not detracted from in any measure by this House.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Throughout the debates on the Bill, I have attacked the Government. This time, I wish to support them, and for exactly the same reason—the value of education. The Conservatives' amendments

show that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The value of education is crucial if we are to build a modern and prosperous economy.
The problem for small businesses has always been one of time. If a small business employs somebody, it needs that person to do the work. As a former senior lecturer in further education, I know that it was up to the colleges and the providers of education to make sure that provision was there as and when the businesses needed it. Therefore, it is up to the providers of education to fit in with the needs of small businesses and to make sure that their requirements are met. The problems can be easily overcome.
The official Opposition may be worried about the effect on small businesses, but it would be worse to have untrained and unqualified staff. Added value is required to build a prosperous and modern economy, and that must mean the added value of an educated and trained work force. If we want quality and raised standards, they must be paid for and planned.
The Conservatives' amendments offer nothing positive. They seek to lower the time available for study and the qualifications gained. Their aim is negative and off-target. In this case, the Government have got it right, and I certainly support them.

Dr. Howells: The speech by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) epitomises the dilemma faced by the Conservative party. The party remains in chronic denial, clinging to a miserable reactionary position—a worm-ridden lifebelt. In 1968, we used to refer to people like the Tories as Poujadists. What a horrible bunch they are when they act like that.
The Conservatives want to deny young people in society the opportunity to take time off from work to enhance their own employability, to acquire new skills and—indirectly—to enable firms to become more profitable, so that their region can become more competitive and the country can benefit. All the Conservatives can do is to defend a miserable minority of reactionaries who always cry "injustice" whenever anybody asks them to put up some money on behalf of their employees and the country.
We will not wear it. There will be a right for young people aged 16 and 17 to take time off to study. It will benefit them, and all of us, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ashford will see fit to withdraw this reactionary nonsense.

Mr. Green: The speeches from Labour Members—epitomised by the that of Minister—combined economic illiteracy and soft-headed good thoughts in about equal measure. The Government are happy to make pious speeches on the importance of training, but they are not happy to put their own assets where their mouth is. As long as somebody else is paying the bill, it does not matter.
The Government are happy to make moral speeches about how important it is to introduce training, but they do not have the guts to do as previous Labour Governments would have done—to increase taxes. They have decided that the way forward is to have hidden taxes on business. In this case, they think that small businesses do not matter, so they can impose the burden on them. To describe the small business sector of this country as "miserable reactionaries"—as the Minister just did—


epitomises what Labour really thinks. Underneath the gloss of new Labour is the hatred of small business and enterprise—

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Green: Not at this stage. The Minister's speech epitomised his party's attitude, which has no intellectual—
It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [19 May] and the Resolution [8 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put and negatived.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Orders of the Day — Clause 34

JOINT EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS OF FUNDING COUNCILS IN SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 33, line 3, leave out 'Treasury' and insert
'Minister for the Civil Service'.

No. 56, in page 33, line 4, leave out from first 'as' to 'may' and insert 'he'.

No. 57, in page 33, line 4, leave out from second 'as' to 'may' in line 5 and insert 'he'. —[Mr. Jamieson.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 36

GENERAL INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 34, line 8, at end insert—
' "functions" includes powers and duties;
modifications" includes additions, alterations and omissions, and "modify" shall be construed accordingly;'. 
No. 99, in page 34, line 13, at end insert—
'(2) In the following provisions of this Act, namely—
(a) sections 12, 15 and 19, and
(b) Schedule 2,
employer", in relation to a teacher, includes a local education authority, governing body or other person who engage (or make arrangements for the engagement of) that person to provide his services as a teacher otherwise than under a contract of employment, and "employed", "employment" and any expressions relating to the termination of employment shall be construed accordingly.'. — [Mr. Jamieson.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 38

NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendment made: No. 75, in page 34, line 21, leave out 'to 24' and insert
', (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support), (Supply of information in connection with student loans), 23 and 24'. —[Mr. Jamieson.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 39

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 35, line 1, after 'Scotland' insert 'only'.
No. 59, in page 35, line 4, leave out '30' and insert
'(Supply of information in connection with student loans:
Scotland), except that subsections (3) and (10A) of section 73A, and section 73AA so far as relating to any function exercisable by virtue of those subsections, of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (which are inserted by section 27) shall also extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland,'. 
No. 60, in page 35, line 5, leave out from '34' to end of line 6 and insert

' and (Scottish Further Education Funding Council: "relevant body" for purposes of section 19(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995)'.
No. 61, in page 35, line 6, at end insert—
'(6A) The following provisions also extend to Scotland—
section 22 so far as relating to the making of any provision authorised by subsection (2)(a), (c), (j) or (k), (3)(e) or (5) of that section,
section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) so far as relating to any function exercisable by virtue of any provision so authorised,
sections 29 and 30,
section (Unauthorised use of "university" in title of educational institution, etc. ),
section 35, and
this section.'.
No. 68, in page 35, line 7, at end insert—
'section 22 so far as relating to the making of any provision authorised by subsection (2)(a), (c), (j) or (k), (3)(e) or (5) of that section, 
section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) so far as relating to any function exercisable by virtue of any provision so authorised,'. 
No. 74, in page 35, line 7, at end insert—
'section (Unauthorised use of "university" in title of
educational institution, etc. ),'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 42, line 30, leave out '73(1)(f)' and insert '73(f)'.

No. 63, in page 42, line 36, leave out '73(1)(f)' and insert '73(f)'.

No. 78, in page 43, line 3, at end insert—
'Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c.13)
. In section 17 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 ("further education corporation" and "operative date"), at the end of subsection (1) add "or which has become a further education corporation by virtue of section 47 of this Act".
. In section 90(3) of that Act (interpretation), after ""university'"' insert "(except where the context otherwise requires)".'.
No. 79, in page 43, line 3, at end insert—
'Charities Act 1993 (c.10)
. In section 3 of the Charities Act 1993 (the register of charities), after subsection (5) insert—
(5A) In subsection (5) above, paragraph (a) shall be read as referring also to—


(a) any higher education corporation within the meaning of the Education Reform Act 1988, and
(b) any further education corporation within the meaning of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992." '.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 80, in page 44, line 18, at end nsert—


'1993 c. 10
Charities Act 1993
In Schedule 2, paragraphs (h) and (j).'


—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Orders of the Day — Title

Amendments made: No. 81, in line 6, leave out from 'them' to 'to' in line 9 and insert
'; to make provision with respect to the funding of higher education institutions and certain further education, and other matters relating to further and higher education institutions;'. 
No. 64, in line 15, after '1973;' insert
'to provide that the Scottish Further Education Funding Council shall be a relevant body for the purposes of section 19(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995;'.—[Mr. Jamieson.] 
Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
With this Bill and the School Standards and Framework Bill, we will enhance the standards of education in our country and ensure that opportunity is opened up. We will modernise the education service through schools and higher education for the 21st century.
We will ensure that the legislative framework exists to enable us to provide a teaching profession that can be proud of its professionalism. The General Teaching Council, which will control entry and exit from the profession, is part of that, ensuring that—for the first time—the profession itself has a body that can speak for, and on behalf of, those who serve in it. I am pleased that we appear to have universal agreement on delivering the GTC, which has bedevilled the debate in the education service for some years.
I am pleased also that we appear to have agreement on the introduction of a proper induction year for teachers. We all recall the failure properly to implement the previous arrangements, and we all know of the real difficulties faced by young teachers in that crucial first year. It is not simply induction that is important; the amount of time made available for preparation is also important. All of us who have been in teaching will never forget the burden of preparation and finding one's feet during the long hours of that first year. Therefore, an induction period with a relaxation of contact time for teachers will make a difference.
In addition, support will be available for teachers, and—linked to the advanced skills teacher post—it will be possible to give the supervision and help that are required. I hope also that the arrangements will reduce the drop-out rate. The number of young people who undertake teacher training but do not take a position or drop out

after the first year is extremely worrying. Were we to be able to reverse that trend, many of the recruitment problems, and the gaps in terms of vacancies, would be eased. The measures will help also to lift the morale and status of the profession generally.
Leadership in teaching is one of the most important issues that we can address. The national professional qualification for headship is a vital step toward ensuring that we have that leadership, and proper training for those who are crucial to the development of the standards agenda. Therefore, it is encouraging that the 3,000 people who have gone into NPQH training have found it to be of use and of value. We must monitor what is happening to make sure that it is meeting the needs of heads of the future. We also need to extend the Headlamp scheme to cover those who are already head teachers, so that we can develop the profile of the job and the training that is needed for the future.
We are mindful of the importance of ensuring that initial teacher training is right. As hon. Members know, we have introduced the curriculum for teacher training; the inspection of teacher training institutions is critical if we are to ensure that standards are maintained and that best practice is followed in all our teaching institutions. With the assistance of the Teacher Training Agency, we can not only assess what is happening at the moment, but get it right for the future.
When the guillotine came down, we were debating the right to study. I believe that it is incumbent on this country to prepare its young people for the future. We need to ask whether we really want a high-tech, added-value economy, in which young people can learn the skills that they need to enhance their opportunities and those of the companies for which they work, or whether we are prepared to put up with being an offshore island that ticks along as a branch-plant economy, looking on as the rest of the world—north America, the developing world in south-east Asia and, increasingly, Europe—equips itself for a modern, 21st-century economy.
We have to face a global economy in which we must invest in human capital and create a knowledge-based society. We have a choice: either we invest in those hands-on skills that are crucial to the viability and survival of companies, big or small, or we abandon young people to the vagaries of the labour market and say that it does not really matter. I think that there is consensus among the political parties—with the exception, perhaps, of the Conservative party—about how we can get things right for the future. Giving people the right to study is not much to ask—I benefited from it when I went on day-release courses and, in my own time, to evening classes to obtain the necessary qualifications, both vocational and academic, to get into university.
We are talking about the difference between those who treat people as mere commodities and those who want to invest in them as the economic and social future of our country. I believe that people respond to the way in which they are treated—if they are given rights and they take those rights, they accept the responsibilities that go with them.
The car industry provides good examples of young people being given day release or adequate in-house training—Ford and Rover have shown how in-house training can work. In associated industries and in modern electronics and telecommunications—Unipart and


Motorola are good examples—considerable steps have been taken, and investment in training is superb. Companies that invest in training gain the rewards—they are at the cutting edge; they are one step ahead and they can compete with the rest of the world—whereas those that do not can expect to tick along for a year or two exploiting human and fixed capital before they go bust, and no one gains from that.
I was dispirited to hear the Conservative party's contribution to the debate. All these matters are linked: high-quality education; the ability to ensure that standards are maintained; leadership; the development of education and training associated with work; the development of education for those who are not in work; and the ability to expand access to the best of education, including higher education, which costs us most, but which rewards us most, and to which, in the new arrangements that we debated last night, we have asked people to contribute.
I do not intend to go through all that again. In fact, I hope that I never have to go through it all again in quite the same way—I did not come into politics to be a masochist. However, in the debates on the Bill, we have been encapsulating the efforts that we are making in education from the early years right the way through to the cutting edge of a knowledge-based economy—higher education is absolutely vital to whether that will be a success.

Mr. Dalyell: As I explained to the House earlier, the fact that there was no Scot on the Standing Committee was not the fault of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I ask him to reconsider the position whereby Scottish universities are asked to discriminate financially between students solely on the basis of which part of the United Kingdom they are from. Financial discrimination on the basis of geographical residence cannot be sustained.
I have a constructive suggestion. Will either a Minister or senior officials talk to Stewart Sutherland, the vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university and former vice-chancellor of London university, whom they know well, and to other Scottish principals, to see whether something can be done about a situation that, as long as Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, cannot continue?

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend will realise that I do not intend, on Third Reading, to reopen yesterday's debate. Of course my Scottish Office colleagues and I would be happy to talk to the vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university and to other vice-chancellors to establish how best we can develop the programme for the future and to assess what difficulties, if any, arise from the decisions that have been taken. I gave such an assurance yesterday on the position of mature students, and I am happy to give my hon. Friend a similar assurance today.
We are embarking on a new road, and we need to ensure that assessment clarifies how the new arrangements are working and monitors their success or otherwise—that is common sense. I genuinely want to build a consensus that will provide stability and continuity in investing for the future, in opening up access and in providing real opportunity where it did not exist before.
I thank all my hon. Friends for their work—

Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I want to say a word of thanks—I shall give way afterwards.
I thank my hon. Friends, especially those who served on the Standing Committee and those who supported the Government through difficult times yesterday—I want to tell them how much that was appreciated, given the difficult task we faced in trying to get these issues right. I also applaud those Opposition Members—especially the Liberal Democrats—who, despite disagreements on some parts of the Bill, supported us on the vast majority of the issues. I also applaud those Conservative Members who, on Second Reading and before, bravely demonstrated their support for the measures that we are taking.

Mr. Brady: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. May I press him on the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? The Secretary of State properly and generously agreed to reconsider whether the policy was working in practice—I take that to mean whether the number of English students at Scottish universities has fallen or increased—but will he go further and tell the House whether he believes that such discrimination, whereby English students will have to pay more than students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is defensible in principle?

Mr. Blunkett: I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman was not here last night; if he had been, he would have noticed that, at least once, a Labour Member made an inappropriate intervention at a particularly crucial part of my speech—I thought that his intervention was at an equally inappropriate moment.
I shall not reopen that debate on Third Reading; the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to speak yesterday, but he was not here. We have made it clear that the decision taken by our Scottish Office colleagues is defended and supported both in principle and in practice. As part of the development of future continuity, we are perfectly willing to monitor the measures that we have taken. That is reasonable, and it is certainly the way in which we in this Department would wish to proceed on a range of measures that are considered by the House.
I am proud of what we are doing, both in this Bill and in the School Standards and Framework Bill. I hope that our opponents in the Lords will not prevent that critical measure from reaching the statute book as fast as possible to protect the interests and the opportunities of children and I hope that, from tonight, we can go forward with this Bill to ensure that we open up that equality of opportunity in a way that has not been present in the past.

Mr. David Willetts: Debates on the Bill have been most interesting, and the Standing Committee was the most interesting on which I have served since my days as a junior Whip, when the Labour Whip opposite me was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), now Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment. We worked on the sensible basis that neither of us would try to catch out the other in any way, and managed to steer the Bill through on that basis.
I am afraid that this Bill led to a serious debate in Committee about important educational issues, and the surprisingly downbeat and low-key summary that we have just heard from the Secretary of State does not convey the energy with which a variety of important educational matters have been debated during its passage.
I must pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who led the opposition to the Bill throughout most of our debates on it. As Ministers were kind enough to say, he provided a model of effective, quizzical examination of the Government's proposals. I also appreciated the contributions by other Opposition Members, who made important points. We have since had the pleasure of being joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Ashford (Mr. Green), who have spoken effectively in the debate today.
The Bill contains measures on four crucial areas. The first is on the General Teaching Council, which we have already debated today and about which I will say only that the model that my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood had in mind was that of the General Medical Council, with which he was familiar from his time as Secretary of State for Health. The trouble with the proposal before us is that it is neither one thing nor the other, and it does not have the prospect of growing into the sort of professional body that the GMC is. One of our frustrations with the Bill is that it is so restrictive. It stipulates so precisely what the GTC can do that, although Ministers have tried to placate their critics with many soft warm words about how it could expand and develop its role, it is difficult to see how that is possible.
Secondly, I do not believe that the Secretary of State referred in his rather cautious summary to the measures on head teachers and the professional headship qualification. Again, we are perfectly happy for head teachers to secure professional headship qualifications and, indeed, would encourage them to do so; the question is whether the proposals in the Bill, which require that as a precondition for practising as a head teacher, are the right way forward.

Mr. Blunkett: Yesterday, I had to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to amendment No. 77 and now I must draw his attention to the fact that I have spoken at some length about the national professional qualification for headship and the development of the Headlamp scheme. I also said that 3,000 had entered it and that we would need to monitor how it was going and how it could be improved. I wanted to point that out in case the hon. Gentleman had slipped out for a moment and missed what I said.

Mr. Willetts: I was happy to subscribe to that amendment, as we tabled it—the Secretary of State appeared to be unaware of that point when we debated it yesterday. However, I accept that he did cover the qualifications for head teachers.
Our concern is that, if it is made a statutory requirement, instead of steady, organic growth for the professional headship qualification, we will see the simple and rigid application of a regulation, which will not meet the objectives that the Government have set out—raising professional standards among head teachers. We will see the development of paper qualifications, which will be a precondition for working as a head teacher, not the longer,

harder and ultimately more rewarding process of developing consensus in the teaching profession about what is necessary as a qualification to practise as a head teacher.
Thirdly, the Bill contains proposals on the right to study for 16 and 17-year-olds, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford touched earlier. The point is simple. Ministers cannot celebrate the flexibility of the British economy without thinking about how it is to be earned and preserved. Preserving the gains of flexibility that we secured in the past 18 years involves ensuring that burdens are not imposed on business that will deter it from doing the very things that we all want. We do not think that it is desirable to have a low-paid, unskilled work force, which is the myth that the Labour party tries to propagate. However, we do not believe that the way forward is simply to pass laws about it. The Government do not understand that the way to improve economic performance is not simply by burdening business with ever more regulation.
The most important measures in the Bill are on higher education, and it was perhaps those that the Secretary of State had in mind when he referred to the need to "build a consensus". That might have to begin with the 31 Labour Members who did not appear to be a part of the consensus on the subject last night—it is no wonder that they were not, as they were invited to support measures that clearly contradict undertakings given before the general election campaign.[Interruption.]
I see Labour Members shaking their heads. If any Labour Members can explain how the present Prime Minister could have fought the election campaign on the basis of having no plans to introduce tuition fees and then promptly introduced a measure that imposed such fees without clearly being in breach of an election promise, I will be happy to hear from them. The Secretary of State could not carry 31 of his colleagues through the Lobby last night, because what they were invited to vote on was not the prospectus that was put before the electorate at the election. [Interruption.]
I hear Labour Members muttering, "Manifesto." They cannot have it both ways on the manifesto—they cannot claim, as we heard last night, that the abolition of the maintenance grant must get through because it was a manifesto pledge, without accepting, on the same line of argument, that the imposition of tuition fees should not get through because it was clearly contrary to pre-election assurances given by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now the Prime Minister.
The Government could have seized an historic opportunity. On 1 May 1997, the world of higher education had enormous good will toward the incoming Government. Many people in that world hoped for great things from this Government. They had all been successfully seduced by a variety of Labour spokesmen over the years, and hoped for great things. There was not merely good will for the new Ministers, but the prospect of a serious piece of work arriving on their desks—the Dearing report, which would set out the way forward for them. The Government had the combination of good will and the most serious investigation of higher education for a generation, which provided them with the opportunity to develop a policy agenda for higher education that took us a stage beyond the one that we had reached with the enormous expansion of that sector, in which every Conservative Member can take pride.
We recognised that things could not carry on indefinitely as they had been, and that is why we set up the Dearing investigation. Everyone in the higher education world was saying that and we received and understood that message. However, the Government have missed that opportunity. In 13 months, they have alienated just about every serious group within the world of higher education. I do not know whether Ministers visit that world much, but, if they heard what is said about them now compared with what was said a year ago, they would realise that the loss of good will, hope and confidence in this Government in the first 12 months on higher education has been extraordinary. That is because Education Ministers have presided over a catalogue of disasters which are embodied in the Bill.
First, Ministers made the elementary tactical mistake of giving away their hand on higher education finances before they had concluded negotiations with the Treasury on the fundamental spending review. We are getting all the pain, but no gain. We are getting tuition fees, but no assurance that the money will go to higher education. All we had from Ministers in Committee was the accountancy truism that the money would be collected by the universities. We want to know that there will be no offsetting reduction in grants to the universities, and Ministers have not been able to give that assurance.
We are left to rely on the Secretary of State's being able to secure from the fundamental spending review some of the measures that Dearing envisaged. He would have to be even more incompetent than he has been so far if he were not at least to get resource accounting from his discussions with the Treasury. If he cannot get that, he will be in very serious difficulty. It is manifest from the basis on which we introduced resource accounting that loans would have to be differently treated under such a regime than they have been.
It is not only those who run the universities and who are concerned about their finances who are cross with the Government's ministerial team. Students have been double-crossed. Students represented by the National Union of Students and other bodies thought that they had an understanding with the Labour party: if they supported abolition of the maintenance grant, there would be no tuition fees. That was the basis on which the NUS signed up to Labour policy before the general election.
There has been a striking absence of Scottish Labour Members from debate, but there has been a similarly striking absence of those new Labour Members who once served as presidents of the NUS. One was rolled out desperately when the Secretary of State was in serious trouble last night, but those Labour Members have been invisible; they did not serve on the Committee, they did not speak on Second Reading. I suspect that they were all told to take constituency leave in case they were confronted in the Chamber with the pledges that they gave when they served as presidents of the NUS.

Mr. Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman has made much of tuition fees, but will he confirm that his

party favours fees, and also favours top-up fees, which would drive a coach and horses through access to higher education?

Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Committee. If he had, and had studied our amendments—

Mr. Rammell: With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, I was on the Committee and was there through every sitting.

Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman did not say anything.
We accept the principle of tuition fees, but tabled an amendment specifying that tuition fees should be 25 per cent. of the cost of a university education, and making it difficult for Ministers to do anything other than raise fees by the rate of the retail prices index. We know of anxiety in the world of higher education that the Government will go down the Australian route, so that what begins as a quarter will gradually be nudged up.
Our position is clear: if we accept Dearing, we must accept the £1,000 tuition fee which it proposed. However, we were trying—the Secretary of State would have had rather less difficulty last night if he had accepted the amendment—to make it clear to everyone in the world of higher education that it would not be possible for the Government to smuggle through real increases in tuition fees on top of that figure.

Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman; if he wants to seek to speak in the short time available for Third Reading, he is free to do so.
The financial settlement is unsatisfactory. Students have been double-crossed. People in universities will now be micro-managed.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: I am sorry, but I have already overrun my time and do not wish to take any more interventions.
We have heard from the Secretary of State that he did not wish to preside over a "branch-plant economy". However, that is what he is making of the world of higher education. His taste for regulations and directives means that people who are supposed to be in charge of sophisticated institutions that are not part of the public sector will find themselves micro-managed by his Department. It is no vision for the future of education to believe that an organisation should enter the 21st century having to run to the Department for Education and Employment to get clearance through statutory instruments and regulations for matters that would, in any modern organisation, be within the discretion of a junior manager.
The Secretary of State cannot run higher education, although I think that he believes he can. I think that he thinks that he is the chief executive of the British higher education industry. He is not. If he thinks that he is, the alienation of higher education that we have already seen during the Government's first year will carry on apace


during their remaining years in office. Instead of a settlement for a generation, Ministers will be lucky if the measures in the Bill last until the next general election.

Mr. Dalyell: I was not on the Standing Committee, but I am unrepentantly one of the 31. It may be much better to have representatives of the awkward squad on, rather than off, the Committee.
I want to ask two questions. First, given the Government's proposals, is it not necessary to take measures to make certain that students at university have some understanding that the money that they are paying will lead to the improvement of their own institution? I am told that there will be great dissent and difficulty in the universities if it cannot be shown that improvements are the direct result of so many of the students paying fees. In what way is it possible to link in the minds of undergraduates and other students the feeling that the money that they will pay will to lead to better libraries, better tuition, more facilities and some gain to them?
My second point explains why some of us were sorry not to be on the Committee, where we could have asked questions. When, 15 or 20 years from now, I am kicking up the daisies and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in some very distinguished position, he should bear in mind the difficulties that will have accrued by 2010 or 2020 in actually collecting money from the students of the 1990s. One can imagine what a field day it will be for lawyers.
I have read many of the reports of the Committee's debates, but I have seen nothing about the mechanics of collection. I understand that in both Australia and America there have been enormous difficulties and that lawyers have started cases that resemble Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. I predict that a lot of the money that may be earmarked for public funds will never in fact accumulate to the Treasury. What is to be done about the sheer difficulty of collection?

Mr. Willis: I thank my "team" on the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I also thank the Secretary of State and his Ministers for the courteous way in which they dealt with me during my first time dealing with a Bill in Committee and in the House.
The Government should have seen that passing the Bill would not be easy. Even with a huge Commons majority, the range of principles involved was such that debate was likely to be fierce and focused. Some Members—I am one of them—were naive enough to expect that the principles involved in the Bill would be debated on the Floor of the House. When Lord Glenamara said in another place that it was the worst Bill that he had seen in 47 years, I sensed a slight exaggeration from one who had seen some of the worst Bills ever, but his comments have been largely vindicated by the events of the past few months.
The Bill was deeply flawed when it started its passage through the Lords, and it will leave us tonight deeply flawed. My experience is limited, but a Bill that has required eight Government new clauses, a Government new schedule and 98 Government amendments in Committee, and then seven Government new clauses and 83 Government amendments on Report—197 Government

changes since its introduction—is by any test a flawed Bill. The question is whether it is a better Bill as a result of the 197 Government-led changes.
My party is pleased about the improvements in the General Teaching Council and disappointed that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made light of some of the changes. The council is a significantly different beast from that prepared in the Lords. It started off as a registration document but now has an opportunity to mirror other professional bodies such as the General Medical Council. We are grateful to the Government, and wish the GTC well.
We also welcome the introduction of mandatory qualifications for head teachers and the commitment to continuous professional development. The emphasis on professional development from when students enter teacher training establishments until they complete their induction years is good news for the individual, for schools and their pupils and for the teaching profession.
Notwithstanding the criticisms of the official Opposition, we are pleased that the Government are implementing their manifesto pledge to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to time off for study. Like others, we were disappointed that the official Opposition's vision of small business is of penny-pinching, mean employers who are not committed to their work forces. That is not how I find them to be in my constituency. Many of them will welcome the new opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds, some 140,000 of whom do not have qualifications up to NVQ level 2 and who will become a huge drain on society if they are not employed. Giving them skills in employment is a move forward that we support. It is important to recognise that it is unacceptable to allow young people to fail, and it would be wrong to ignore their failure.
We support the proposals to introduce income-contingent loans for students. That has been ignored in much of the debate, but it is a significant move forward from the mortgage-style repayment loans that existed under the previous Government's regime. Had the Bill stopped there, we would have congratulated the Secretary of State, marched into the Lobby with the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath would have opened a bottle of champagne after Third Reading. Sadly, he will not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Perhaps a bottle of Bath beer.
Part II is so badly flawed that the Liberal Democrats cannot and will not vote for the Bill. Furthermore, we will urge our noble Friends in another place to amend it again and return it to the House for further scrutiny. Part II has been bulldozed through the House with an arrogant disregard for debate on principled objections in a manner last seen when Baroness Thatcher was singing the praises of the poll tax.
The Government have orchestrated a symphony of abuse of their Back Benchers who have remained wedded to principles of social justice and equality. Few could have been unmoved by the sincerity and decency of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) when he spoke about student maintenance last night. Somehow, principled debate has no place with a Government who need Back-Bench adulation like an addict needs drugs.

Mr. Coaker: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his remarks? I respect what my hon. Friend the hon. Member


for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said and his principled stand. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who support the Government line also do so from a position of principle, to pursue social justice? There is a difference about the way to pursue it.

Mr. Willis: If the hon. Gentleman says that, I believe him because hon. Members never tell untruths or try to deceive the House. Few Opposition Members witnessed the abuse of rebels who tried to speak up for what they believe without finding it shameful.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I do not feel that I have been abused in any way.

Mr. Willis: Hon. Members will speak for themselves.
The most significant proposal in the Bill is the introduction of tuition fees for full-time undergraduates, yet hon. Members have been denied an opportunity to discuss that single issue on the Floor of the House and vote on it. For Liberal Democrats, the principle of a state investing in its people is an overriding principle. We fundamentally oppose a tax on learning. We accept that many students in higher and further education already contribute to their fees, but the proposition that because some students are disadvantaged we should disadvantage all students is ridiculous. The Government rightly go to great lengths to emphasise the levelling up of opportunity and the importance of standards in our education system, but in higher education they argue the opposite.

Valerie Davey: Given the ability of those entering higher education, is not the hon. Gentleman espousing the principle that to those that have shall more be given?

Mr. Willis: No. We believe strongly that the army of part-time students in further and higher education who currently do not get help towards their fees or access to loans are being disregarded, and they are disregarded by the Bill. That is an injustice and inequity that should have been addressed by the Bill, but it has not been.
The Secretary of State says that there is little evidence of fees deterring students from applying to university, but his information is selective. My information is that the number of 18 to 20-year-olds applying to university next year has indeed risen by 1.1 per cent. More telling is the 11.5 per cent. drop in applications from students aged 21 to 24, and the staggering 15.1 per cent. reduction in applications from students aged over 25. That was not mentioned yesterday, but it should be mentioned. It should have been part of the debate on tuition fees. Does the Secretary of State feel that such students have been affected by the introduction of tuition fees?

Dr. Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: Perhaps the Secretary of State—or the Minister, if he wishes to intervene—will say whether they feel that the 15 per cent. reduction in recruitment to teacher training for BEd courses this year is the result of

tuition fees. Is the reduction of more than 10 per cent. in the number of postgraduates going into teaching another such result, or is there some other reason?

Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman knows that those figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service are not to be released until the end of the week, and were faxed to him in confidence. That is why the Secretary of State did not announce them.
Will he acknowledge that he knows full well that older students always apply later to university? The success of our policy on encouraging people to go to university under the new regime relates to the fact that the easiest potential students to reach are those in sixth forms, further education colleges and sixth-form colleges, while the most difficult to reach are the older students. Where we have managed to get information across, students have agreed that it is a good deal. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he stops using those tactics, when we get information through to older students, they too will want to go to university, because it is a good deal for them as well.

Mr. Willis: The Minister's confidence about there being more mature students is welcome, but I have to remind him that in yesterday's debate he and his colleagues made points about students going to Scottish institutions as a direct result of the UCAS figures being given to them, so it is perfectly reasonable for me to use the same figures in support of my arguments.

Mr. Willetts: We have just heard some extraordinary charges being levelled; can we have some clarification? Is it true that, yesterday, when the House debated the proposals in the Bill regarding access to higher education, both Ministers and the Liberal Democrat spokesmen had in their possession the latest UCAS figures on university applications, but neither Ministers nor the Liberal Democrats felt that those figures were relevant to yesterday's debate?

Mr. Willis: The Government had the figures yesterday—they were made available to them and were used in yesterday's debate, in particular in respect of the Scottish question. We did not have access to the figures, but, as a result of the figures being given in yesterday's debate, I sought out the figures today because they are pertinent to today's debate, just as they were to yesterday's debate.
Sir Ronald Dearing proposed charging students tuition fees because, in the absence of additional Government resources, he saw student fees as the only way to increase funding for universities. Neither Dearing nor vice-chancellors supported the introduction of tuition fees as an alternative to increased Government funding, yet that is precisely how the Government envisage their use.
The Dearing committee of inquiry made clear that universities need ££65 million this year to avoid disastrous cuts, yet they were given only ££65 million. Dearing also said that universities need ££50 million next year, but, so far, they have been promised absolutely nothing. Dearing said that, by 2000, universities would need ££ billion in extra income.
Fees would produce £00 million, if universities were allowed to retain the additional income, but there is no commitment to ring-fence tuition fees as additional


income, and no commitment to meet from the Exchequer the additional requirements that Dearing identified. That is why, both here and in another place, the Government have steadfastly refused to accept amendments from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and the Liberal Democrats to ring-fence or hypothecate fees from students for universities.
How can any hon. Member support a proposal to tax student learning without there being a guarantee of some advantage? That is what we being asked to do. The Bill is not about helping students or universities, nor is it about a vision for higher education and funding; it is a Bill that will be remembered as short-changing both universities and students. That is why we shall vote against it tonight.

Caroline Flint: I have only two points to make. On the issue of access to training for 16 and 17-year-olds in work, I was disappointed by the comments of Opposition Members. In the past year, I have spoken to many small business people in Don Valley, and their remarks on training have been interesting. They are active through the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC and through the Dearne Valley partnership, and they tell me that many young people they take on at 16 are those with whom they have been working through the trident scheme in schools. They are investing in those young people's education, and they are disappointed in those of their colleagues in the small business sector who refuse to make that sort of investment but later try to poach those young people from firms that have invested in them.
The small business people to whom I spoke want a level playing field that encourages opportunity for young people. They feel strongly about it because many small business people, unlike some larger firms, have stakes in their local community that go back generations. They see their sons and daughters leaving schools in areas where employment prospects are difficult. They want investment in the community, not only in jobs, but in law and order and in tackling other social problems that are created by lack of work, training and education.
My second point is about access to higher education. Last night, many hon. Members spoke about how they had benefited from access to higher education through maintenance grants. I, too, was one of those people. I finished my higher education 1983. Many hon. Members finished theirs well before then, but one feeling that my generation and previous generations in higher education share is that we were exceptions to the rule. Nothing has changed since then in terms of increasing opportunities for people from low-income, low-skill backgrounds who might be the first members of their family to enter higher education.
The Bill gives us a chance for radical change—not to increase access in single figure percentage terms, but dramatically to expand the opportunities for our young people in higher education and, as important, in further education. That is why I shall support the Bill tonight.

Mrs. Spelman: I would not want the debate to end without trying to reinforce some of the warnings that we have given in a spirit of constructive opposition. There are some unsatisfactory outcomes from the Bill which, to

our regret, have not been addressed. We have tried to warn the Government about the impact of the abolition of the maintenance grant on poorer communities.
I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee, which carefully reviewed the Dearing report's aim to provide more finance for higher education, in recognition of the success—extraordinarily denied by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—in enabling many more people to gain access to higher education. The proportion has increased from one in eight of the population when I was in higher education to one in three today, and it was achieved under a system of means-tested grants.

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Spelman: In view of the time, it is fair for me to continue.
Dearing warned against the option that the Government have chosen and said that it
would produce unacceptable burdens on graduates and on families of modest means.
It is extraordinary that a Labour Government have chosen to do that and ignore our warnings.
On the Scottish anomaly, I concur entirely with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). If only there had been a Scottish Member on the Standing Committee. That was an option open to the Government; the mistake could have been avoided. Last night, we heard extraordinary rationalisations of the anomaly, ranging from relativism—it is not the worst anomaly—to an argument that the arrangement would make more room for domestic applications from Scotland. The point is ignored that some higher education courses need to be of different lengths and the system should be sufficiently flexible to take account of that; also ignored is the long-term impact on Scottish universities.
Today, we have debated the burden imposed on business. I am disappointed by the Government's failure to heed our warning that 16 and 17-year-olds will be disadvantaged in relation to other Government initiatives by the amendment that gives them the right to study, financed by business. Not only have the Government ignored our warning, but they have not heeded Baroness Blackstone's carefully calculated assessment of the impact of the advantage for the 18-to-24 age group versus the disadvantage for 16 and 17-year-olds.
Those shortcomings have been wrapped up in pious language and a high moral tone that overlooks our efforts constructively to oppose and to encourage the Government to improve their own legislation. How ours can be described as a reactionary stance defeats me.

Mr. Rammell: I am conscious of the time, but I want to pursue a crucial issue in response to the answer that I received from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). I refer to the Conservative party's stance on top-up fees. I, with the Government, oppose the principle of top-up fees, because there will be no exemption for the poorest students and no loans for them: we run the risk of creating a two-tier ivy league syndrome from which thousands of our young people will be excluded.
It was clear from what the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said in Committee that the Conservative party favours top-up fees. Specifically, he said that they were not ruled out and, in line with Dearing, he would support the principle of top-up fees. However, the hon. Member for Havant this evening denied that, dodged the question and spoke about the uprating mechanism. Before the debate ends, I should like a clear and principled answer from the Opposition. Do they support top-up fees, or not? Hundreds of thousands of students want an answer to that question.

Mr. Green: It is appropriate to treat the Bill with a judicious mixture of sorrow and anger. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that the Secretary of State was uncharacteristically downbeat in his moving Third Reading. I assume that he has been chastened by the events of last night, when Labour Members who stuck to their principles voted against him. He said that he wanted to build consensus about the Bill, but he has failed to build a consensus even in his own party.
I found some of the speech of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) extraordinary. He praised the courage and principle of those who came into the Lobby with us to vote against the abolition of maintenance grants, but led his party to vote with the Government whom he purported to criticise today. His stance is incomprehensible.
The Bill has many bad features. The General Teaching Council is a great opportunity missed. The Government have been too prescriptive, and left the council unable to expand. On head teachers, they have again been too interfering and prescriptive. They are in danger of setting up a paper qualification that will leave no room for the naturals, who have made so many of the great head teachers from whom many of us have benefited.
On the right to study, Labour Members have been full of piety, with no back-up. They will destroy some of the flexibility that the previous Government introduced into the British economy, and will pile costs on small business.
The central flaw in the Bill is its treatment of higher education. Having torn up the Dearing report on the day they received it, and having refused to implement one of its central recommendations, the Government have been in chaos ever since about how to cope with the funding of higher education. They are damaging the right to study, especially for those from less well-off homes. Their decision to abolish the maintenance grant, against the specific recommendation of Dearing, is an act of vandalism for which they will suffer.
The Government have betrayed a clear election pledge from the Prime Minister that they would not introduce tuition fees. On top of that, they cannot guarantee that the money that they will raise from tuition fees will go back into higher education—and they have decided to treat students going to Scottish universities as second-class citizens.
This is a bad Bill. We will vote against it, and I invite hon. Members who care about the future of higher education and who want it to be properly funded and available to all to join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Blunkett: Utter cant. Even the former shadow Secretary of State had to leave during the speech of the current shadow Secretary of State.
During the night, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) might reflect on the fact that he criticised us for tabling too many amendments, and then praised us for accepting the amendments that he tabled. He cannot have it both ways.
UCAS faxed the latest figures across at 4.30 pm this afternoon and, for reasons of its own, also faxed them to the Liberal Democrats. The figures used yesterday were from 15 May.
The Bill looks to the future. We ask all Labour Members to vote for the Bill's Third Reading, because it is the only option for Britain in the 21st century.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 174.

Division No. 297]
[6.43 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clwyd, Ann


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Coaker, Vernon


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cohen, Harry


Atkins, Charlotte
Coleman, lain


Banks, Tony
Colman, Tony


Barron, Kevin
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beard, Nigel
Corbett, Robin


Begg, Miss Anne
Corston, Ms Jean


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cox, Tom


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cranston, Ross


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blizzard, Bob
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boateng, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Borrow, David
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)



Dawson, Hilton


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Denham, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dismore, Andrew


Browne, Desmond
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Donohoe, Brian H


Burgon, Colin
Doran, Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dowd, Jim


Byers, Stephen
Drew, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Campbell-Savours, Dale
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ennis, Jeff


Chaytor, David
Etherington, Bill


Chisholm, Malcolm
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clark, Dr Lynda
Fitzsimons, Lorna






Flint, Caroline
Livingstone, Ken


Flynn, Paul
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Follett, Barbara
Love, Andrew


Foster, Fit Hon Derek
McAllion, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCabe, Steve


Fyfe, Maria
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gapes, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gardiner, Barry
McDonnell, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McFall, John


Gerrard, Neil
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mclsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McLeish, Henry


Godsiff, Roger
McNamara, Kevin


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
MacShane, Denis


Grant, Bernie
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Mandelson, Peter


Gunnell, John
Marek, Dr John


Hain, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Martlew, Eric


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Maxton, John


Hanson, David
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meale, Alan


Healey, John
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michael, Alun


Hepburn, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heppell, John
Milburn, Alan


Hill, Keith
Moffatt, Laura


Hinchliffe, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoey, Kate
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Hoon, Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Hope, Phil
Mullin, Chris


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howells, Dr Kim
Norris, Dan


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pearson, Ian


Jenkins, Brian
Pendry, Tom


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pound, Stephen


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prosser, Gwyn


Kemp, Fraser
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rammell, Bill


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rapson, Syd


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie



Laxton, Bob
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lepper, David

Rogers, Allan


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rowlands, Ted


Linton, Martin
Roy, Frank





Ruane, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Salter, Martin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Savidge, Malcolm
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sawford, Phil
Timms, Stephen


Sedgemore, Brian
Tipping, Paddy


Shaw, Jonathan
Touhig, Don


Sheerman, Barry
Trickett, Jon


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Truswell, Paul


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Vis, Dr Rudi



Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Watts, David


Snape, Peter
White, Brian


Soley, Clive
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wood, Mike


Stoate, Dr Howard
Woolas, Phil


Stott, Roger
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stringer, Graham



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)
Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. David Clelland.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cran, James


Allan, Richard
Curry, Rt Hon David


Arbuthnot, James
Dafis, Cynog


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Baker, Norman
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Ballard, Jackie
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Beggs, Roy
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Duncan, Alan


Bercow, John
Duncan Smith, lain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Brady, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brake, Tom
Flight, Howard


Brand, Dr Peter
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brazier, Julian
Foster, Don (Bath)


Breed, Colin
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garnier, Edward


Burnett, John
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burns, Simon
Gibb, Nick


Burstow, Paul
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gorrie, Donald


Cash, William
Gray, James


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Green, Damian



Greenway, John


Chidgey, David
Grieve, Dominic


Chope, Christopher
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Clappison, James
Hague, Rt Hon William


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hammond, Philip


Collins, Tim
Hancock, Mike


Colvin, Michael
Harris, Dr Evan


Cotter, Brian
Harvey, Nick






Hawkins, Nick
Pickles, Eric


Hayes, John
Prior, David


Heald, Oliver
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Rendel, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Robathan, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Horam, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Ruffley, David


Hunter, Andrew
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sanders, Adrian


Jenkin, Bernard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Johnson Smith,
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)
Soames, Nicholas


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Key, Robert
Stunell, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Swinney, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Syms, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Livsey, Richard
Townend, John


Loughton, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Luff, Peter
Trend, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tyrie, Andrew


MacKay, Andrew
Wallace, James


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Wardle, Charles


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Malins, Humfrey
Wells, Bowen


Mates, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Whittingdale, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


May, Mrs Theresa
Wilkinson, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Willetts, David


Moore, Michael
Willis, Phil


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Wilshire, David


Moss, Malcolm
Woodward, Shaun


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Norman, Archie
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Oaten, Mark



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Richard
Sir David Madel and Mrs. Caroline Spelman.


Paice, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill [Allocation of Time]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of 17th December 1997 be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendment

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendment shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

(2) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (and any other Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings).

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendment

2.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings.

Reasons Committee

3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

Miscellaneous

4.—(1) In the case of proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendment, on any further Message from the Lords or on a Motion relating to a Committee to draw up Reasons—

(a) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply,
(b) the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House,
(c) no dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown (in which case the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith),
(d) if the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period allowed for the interrupted proceedings, and
(e) if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the proceedings are concluded, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Today we shall, I hope, conclude the House's consideration of the treaty of Amsterdam. The European Communities (Amendment) Bill has had detailed scrutiny here and in another place. We have had a grand total of 15 days' debate on those issues, not to mention the numerous other instances of reports and ministerial appearances before Select Committees of both Houses. On the Floor of the House, 31 hours, over six days, have been spent debating the Amsterdam treaty. In another place, some 53 hours and 44 minutes were spent in detailed scrutiny of the Amsterdam treaty, over a full nine days.

Throughout our debates, the overwhelming support for the Bill both here and in another place has become apparent: majorities in favour of the Bill in this House of 230 and 225, on Second Reading and Third Reading respectively, and a clear majority supporting the Bill in another place.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: Not at the moment.
The Bill has been subjected to exhaustive consideration, and has won support from all quarters. So great was the all-party support for the Bill that all but one of the Opposition's attempts to amend it failed—almost all, but not all, for today we have before us an amendment from another place, which seeks to delay the passage of a Bill that commands the support of both Houses. Without the votes of 76 Tory hereditary peers, that amendment would have been stopped in its tracks by a Government majority of 12.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am listening sympathetically to what the Minister is saying about the support for the Bill. Is he in a position to say how many referendums concerning the treaty have been held in other member states? Of those, in how many did the people vote in favour of the treaty?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are in danger of straying into the next business. The

motion before us is the allocation of time motion, so we should discuss only the allocation of time at this stage. When we discuss the next business, it will be perfectly in order to widen the matter before us.

Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend on the subject of timing by mentioning that, in both Denmark and Ireland, time was found in their political scrutiny systems to allow a referendum, which, in both cases, was carried overwhelmingly.
I return to the business of our Parliament. It is important that, in due course, we examine the specifics of the amendment. I believe that the proposed allocation for this stage of the Bill will allow the House the necessary time to discuss the specific issue before us. I say that to the House in the knowledge and in the context that the substance of the issue has been discussed in other forums in the House.
The Government have sought to limit the debate to the specific issue before us, and to allow the necessary time for that issue to be debated. Tonight is not the time to re-run the arguments, which the Opposition have fought and lost, on the Bill in general. We shall discuss a specific issue, and I look forward to debating it with colleagues in the House when we move from the timetable motion, which I hope that the House will accept.

Mr. Michael Howard: This lamentable Bill is ending its life in Parliament under a squalid guillotine. Unjustifiably, the Government introduced a guillotine very early in its proceedings—a classic example of their contempt for Parliament. However, in view of the large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to take part in the debate, I do not wish, in debating the guillotine, to take further time out of the time that should be available to them. Let us get on to the substance of the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendment considered.

New clause

Lords amendment: after clause 1, to insert the following new clause—Quota-hopping—
(". This Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown considering the legal protection for British fishermen afforded by the Treaty of Amsterdam on the issue of quota-hopping.")

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment would prevent the United Kingdom from ratifying the treaty of Amsterdam until such time as both Houses of Parliament had come to a resolution on a motion concerning the Amsterdam treaty and quota hopping. The Government cannot accept that amendment.
The House will recognise that, if the amendment were passed, it would delay ratification of the treaty of Amsterdam by the United Kingdom. Indeed, in the light of the Opposition's apparent willingness to rely on the voting rights of hereditary peers, it might delay it much longer than the House might initially suppose.
The House will also recognise that such delay would prevent British citizens from getting the benefits of the Amsterdam treaty provisions. It would prevent confirmation of the distinctive United Kingdom arrangements for border controls, now included in the treaty. It would prevent the important new provisions on foreign and defence policy from coming into being, which are highly advantageous to the United Kingdom; we believe that international co-operation on foreign policy is important, founded on a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence capability. It would prevent important progress on environmental protection. It would prevent important progress on tackling unemployment through the European Union. Even if the amendment were passed, it would do nothing to help us to find a solution to the problems of the fishing industry.

Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in fact, the House of Lords has been extremely temperate—in my view, far too temperate—in its treatment of the Bill? It is a little on the thin side for us to have only one amendment as a result of all the consideration of the Bill in the House of Lords. Had the accusations that have been made against the House of Lords been justified, I should have expected—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree—many more amendments. I regret the fact that there are not more.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is free to regret what he wishes in the House, and if he wishes to regret the inactivity of another place, that is up to him. I do not think that there has been inactivity. I think that the Members of another place have considered the issues surrounding the Bill and, in most cases, have reached a considered view, which would be acceptable to the vast


majority of Members of this House and of the people of the United Kingdom. One must commend them on that. There is a difference of view on whether a deal on quota hopping should be a reason to delay the Bill; we can now debate that. In general, however, the other place has dealt with these matters in a reasonable way.

Mr. John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not antagonistic to the European Union, so I do not think it unreasonable to ask him the following question. Is it not true that most of the problem concerning the amendment arises because of the direct promises made by the Prime Minister on what he was going to gain in the discussions that led to the Amsterdam treaty? This is not something that should divide pro-Europeans and anti-Europeans; it is a fact that the Prime Minister promised that he would deliver something, and he has not delivered it. The amendment suggests only that, until he delivers what he promised, we should not deliver what he said he would not sign up to until he had delivered it. That is the issue before the House; the recital of stuff about the environment has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Henderson: The Prime Minister committed the British Government to tackling the important and serious problem of quota hopping, and he has done so in a practical and realistic way. I shall return specifically to the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. If I happen to omit some of them, I know that he can intervene again.
The Government share the genuine concerns of the fishing industry in relation to the issue of quota hopping. That, I believe, will be demonstrated in the comments that I am about to make.
The difference between this Government and the previous Government is that, rather than talk and harangue about the fishing industry, we have been prepared to act firmly in defence of British fishing interests. The Conservatives claim that they would not have signed the Amsterdam treaty unless they had secured a deal on the quota hopping protocol, which they tabled. They have made much of that protocol—in fact, its signing increasingly became the centrepiece of the Conservative position on the European Union in the build-up to the general election.
The protocol was tabled in autumn 1996. If the previous Government considered the protocol to be so important and so central to their approach to the European Union—and particularly the treaty of Amsterdam—why did the German Government not know about it? When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Germany about a week after the general election, we raised the matter with Klaus Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister. He was unaware not only of the contents of the protocol but of its existence. If the Conservative Government of the day had had any hope of progressing the matter, they would have needed the support and understanding of the German Foreign Minister.
The Conservatives were winding up their efforts in the spring of 1997, but the problems with quota hopping did not begin then—as every fisherman in the United Kingdom knows. On 2 April 1985, during the debate on


the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Union, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, told the House:
There will be no detriment to our fishing industry, no reductions in the important quotas available to British fishermen and no new access for Spanish fishing boats to the North Sea fishing grounds."—[Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1061.]
The Government of the day believed that they had secured sufficient protection for the British fishing industry, and that quota hopping would not be a problem. However, the European courts told the Conservative Government in 1991 that there was a problem. Why did they wait another six years—until 1997—before beginning to tackle the issue seriously? In the absence of any cogent argument in support of the delay, it appears that the Conservative position was an empty gesture—a panic attack by a demoralised and directionless Government—and was not deliverable. I put it to the Opposition that they knew 12 months ago that the protocol was not deliverable.
We have faced the issue realistically and put a firm and practical case for the British fishing industry and British fishing communities.

Mr. John Townend: How much extra fish will be produced for British fishing boats as a result of the Government's negotiations at Amsterdam?

Mr. Henderson: That is an interesting speculation, and it would be dishonest of me to say that I know the answer. We are in the process of concluding the agreement, which must obviously be tested before any fisherman in Britain can say whether the deal has had a beneficial result. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to ask more serious questions in future.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend referred to the incompetence of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in her dealings with European Union member states on the fishing industry issue. I remind him that her predecessor used the United Kingdom fishing industry as a bargaining counter in his negotiations with the then European Economic Community. That is where the root of the problem lies: in his desperate efforts to get into Europe, he sacrificed our fishing communities to the demands of the utterly disgraceful common fisheries policy.

Mr. Henderson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's keen interest in and knowledge of the fishing industry, and I am guided by him on the history of the issue. I assure him that the Government are determined to negotiate seriously and competently, to secure a good deal for the British fishing industry.
We began the process last June with an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission, setting out the practical way forward. The exchange records the Commission's interpretation of how a member state may, within the rules of the single market, require an economic link between fishing activity and fishing communities. Since Amsterdam, we have taken that process forward systematically. We issued a consultation document last July, and, on 4 July, Government officials met representatives of the United

Kingdom industry to discuss implementation. Following that meeting, fishermen's organisations submitted detailed written comments on the discussion paper. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and other fishermen's organisations have been fully involved throughout the process of preparing the economic link licence conditions.
After several other meetings between officials and industry representatives, we submitted draft proposals to the European Commission incorporating contributions from the United Kingdom fishing industry. Those draft proposals were copied to all United Kingdom industry representatives. Following revision of the draft proposals, a new version of the United Kingdom proposals was submitted to the Commission in April. A copy of the proposals was placed in the Library on 12 May 1998 and sent to all United Kingdom industry representatives.
The proposals require all vessels to comply with one of the following criteria. First, vessels must land 50 per cent. of their catch of quota species in the United Kingdom; secondly, 50 per cent. of the crew must be resident in United Kingdom coastal areas; thirdly, there must be a certain level of operational expenditure in United Kingdom coastal areas; or, fourthly, they must demonstrate that other measures will provide sufficient economic benefit to populations in the United Kingdom that are dependent on fishing and related industries. The last condition implies a mixture of the first three.

Mrs. Angela Browning: How many quota hoppers have been removed from the British register?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Lady will understand that there are continual changes. However, changes have not been made to this agreement, because it is not yet concluded. I tried to explain to the House that, following the issue of draft proposals, there was extensive consultation with fishing interests, particularly fishermen. Therefore, the Government were well aware of the perceived implications of the proposals for the fishing industry, and fishermen had the opportunity to put their comments to Commission officials. It is not possible now to see how effective the proposals have been, because they are not yet in place.

Mr. David Curry: What does the Minister mean by the phrase "a certain level of operational expenditure"? What has happened to the visiting condition?

Mr. Henderson: There are many ways of classifying operational expenditure. They are included in the consultative document that was given to the fishing interests, which have responded in great detail. Refitting boats and dealing with equipment, which is one way of demonstrating an economic link to British fishing communities, is covered. The industry was satisfied that that was effective. It is not content, however, with everything that is being said, and there is still a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing, but it is behind the mandate that the British Government now have and on which we are negotiating with Commission officials. This substantial package of measures will be effective and compatible with the treaty.
The process of putting substance into the exchange of letters between ourselves and the Commission is important. Apart from meetings with the fishing industry, many meetings have been held with Commission officials. Since last June, Government officials and officials from Brussels have held formal consultations with the Commission on seven occasions. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discussed progress with Commissioner Bonino. The Commission has said that it will soon be in a position to respond.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Henderson: I have been very generous in giving way, but I am tempted yet again.

Mr. Nicholls: The Minister may regret that, but we shall see.
The Minister mentioned the Government's proposals, which are being considered by the Commission. If a deal is done, and another exchange of correspondence takes place, can he guarantee—I stress that word—that they will not be successfully challenged before the European Court?

Mr. Henderson: I am glad that I gave way, because I can remind the hon. Gentleman that I have already said that we believe that our proposals will be practical and effective, which means that they will be consistent with European law. That is how real progress can be achieved.
Those measures will ensure that real economic links exist between the United Kingdom's fishing fleet and our coastal communities, that there is a significant improvement on the current situation, when many vessels bring little or no benefit to the United Kingdom, and that vessels that fail to maintain an economic link with the United Kingdom will be unable to fish United Kingdom quota species until they are able to demonstrate that satisfactory economic links have been established.
We shall continue to press the case for our fishing industry and our fishing communities, until a fair and acceptable agreement is reached. That is how real progress can be made, which is why we ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.

Mr. Michael Howard: The debate affords hon. Members their only opportunity to reconsider the Bill giving effect to the treaty of Amsterdam. The fact that there will be only one such opportunity speaks volumes for the restraint shown by the other place in its consideration of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said.
Furthermore, the fact that the only such opportunity relates to quota hopping—with which the Government failed to deal at Amsterdam—reflects, first, the importance that we attach to the fishing industry and the contribution that it makes to our national life, and, secondly, the damage done to the industry by the Government's failure to defend it at Amsterdam and the extent to which that failure represents a breach of promises made by Ministers, from the Prime Minister

down, before the election. On that subject, as on so many others, the gap between pre-election promises and post-election performance amounts to a large fracture of the trust to which the Prime Minister used to refer so frequently.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about trust, does he still advocate a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty?

Mr. Howard: As we have consistently made clear, the problem of the referendum is for the Government, not for the Opposition. The Government have offered referendums on everything under the sun—a mayor for London, devolution for Wales and for Scotland and regional bodies in England. If the Government are to offer referendums on those things, they certainly should do so on the treaty.
To keep my speech within manageable proportions, I promise not refer to a single promise made by a Labour party spokesman more than a year before the election. I begin with promises made to a Standing Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am astonished that he is not present but, on reflection and given the extent to which he went on the record before the election and the extremity of the embarrassment he would suffer if he were in the Chamber, perhaps his absence is not such a surprise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who is, of course, in his place, mentioned those promises in the fishing debate of 9 July 1997, so they should not be unfamiliar to Labour Members, even though the Parliamentary Secretary is too embarrassed to attend th debate because he might be reminded of them. Referring to the common resource aspect of the common fisheries policy, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
We must deal with that issue and remove that term from the CFP … We believe that the CFP should be radically reformed to allow us far greater autonomy and national control of fishing waters within our country's limits."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 23 July 1996; c. 24–25.]
Those words were uttered less than a year before he assumed his responsibilities for making good those pledges, and less than a year before the intergovernmental conference which provided the opportunity for making them good—yet, as we know, nothing was done.
The Parliamentary Secretary was by no means the only offender. The Foreign Secretary referred specifically to quota hopping at a meeting that he held with fishing interests in Inverness in March 1997, only weeks before the election and the IGC. His remarks were quoted in Fishing News and drawn to the House's attention in the July fishing debate by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), so they, too, will be familiar to Ministers.
The Foreign Secretary said:
A Labour Government would have more chance of getting the treaty changes at the intergovernmental conference to end quota hopping than would the present Government, because it has a better relationship with the European Union and fewer disputes to resolve.
That may represent one of the first examples of the fantasies to which the Foreign Secretary has since become increasingly prone, but we were never able to discover


what chance the Government had of getting those treaty changes, because, despite the brave and bold words of the Prime Minister, they never even tried.
The Prime Minister said:
We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest … where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are.
That was days before the election, yet, far from holding up IGC business to get the right changes, he made no effort whatever to get them. Why? In his own words,
there was not a single member state that supported the … treaty protocol".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 320.]
That treaty protocol was proposed by the previous Government.

Mr. Gummer: Whatever side one may be on in those discussions, is it not a remarkable failure of the Prime Minister to claim that he could do that, but then not even attempt to do it? Many of us suspected that he could not have done it in the first place. Before the election, he was going to do it, but he has not even tried after the election.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has an awful habit of making a meal of it when he intervenes. He cannot do that.

Mr. Howard: I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is a very appetising meal.
I agree with my right hon. Friend: it is remarkable for the Prime Minister to make those promises and then do nothing to fulfil them, but that is entirely characteristic of him. Like so many other promises that the Prime Minister made before the election, it was a promise for the voting, not for the keeping. The loser from the Prime Minister's attitude has been Britain's fishing industry.
The common fisheries policy was expressly designed to ensure that national fishing fleets would be given fair access to Europe's fish stocks. Quota hopping, which now accounts for more than 20 per cent. of the tonnage of Britain's offshore fleet, is clearly frustrating that purpose. The previous Government were committed to a successful future for the British fishing fleet, and were determined to address this issue at the intergovernmental conference.

Dr. George Turner: I have listened with interest, because I was not in the House during the previous Parliament. What improvements were made between 1991 and 1997? As I understand it, the problem was clearly identified in 1991. What progress was made in those six years that can be contrasted with that made in the past 13 months?

Mr. Howard: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happened. The problem was apparent much earlier than 1991: it became apparent in the 1980s. The Government of the time passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was specifically and expressly designed to deal with the problem. In 1991, the European Court of Justice ruled in the Factortame judgment that the 1988 Act was inconsistent with the treaty. The then Government did what any sensible Government would do: they put the matter on the agenda of the next intergovernmental conference. To put right that judgment of the European

Court of Justice, it was necessary to raise the matter at the intergovernmental conference and to change the treaty.
It is no good Labour Members suggesting that we should not have done that. Just before the election, they were saying that they supported the previous Government's view in their press release and their proposals to the IGC. They even said that they would have made those proposals somewhat stronger. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) or other Labour Members to criticise the actions of the previous Government. They would have gone even further in the proposals to the IGC.

Mr. Doug Henderson: It is strange that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not even able to say, in response to that point, that, at all the various Council meetings between 1991 and 1997, the Conservative Government were not able to raise the issue of quota hopping. Why did they not introduce a decommissioning scheme during those six years as an alternative way for fishing owners in difficulty to deal with the issue, rather than selling their quota to foreign owners?

Mr. Howard: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty, deserted as he is by the Minister responsible for fisheries. It is not surprising that he puts such questions to me. The answer is simple: we did introduce a decommissioning scheme. We spent £53 million on a decommissioning scheme. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not knowing that: he should not have been left alone by the Minister to deal with these questions. There it is: he has my sympathy, although it may not be enough on this occasion.
In July 1996, we tabled a protocol—[Interruption.] Ah, relief is at hand. A hasty telephone call from the Whip, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture arrives. I fear that it is too late for me to remind him of all those embarrassing remarks and promises that he made before the election, but perhaps some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will make good that deficiency as we proceed.

Dr. Godman: As an Opposition MP at the time, I supported the Merchant Shipping Bill as it went through the House, even though I predicted that it was highly probable that it would be challenged at the European Court of Justice. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that the Conservative Government who were put out of office in May 1997 were bedevilled for years by their failure to meet the requirements of the European Union's multi-annual guidance programme?

Mr. Howard: Any difficulties that may have arisen on that programme were not specifically to do with that Government. Any British Government in power at that time would have had to deal with those difficulties. The solution to those problems and to the difficulties that we have previously discussed—this is, after all, a debate about quota hopping—was to be found in the 10-point package that the previous Government proposed. Quota hopping was only part of the package, the aims of which were: to insist that the six and 12-mile limits were not negotiable; to give fishermen more say in policy; to give a further £12 million to decommissioning—the issue that the Minister so ill-advisedly raised—to exempt small


vessels from regulations; to press technical conservation measures; to give agency status to MAFF fisheries laboratories; and to reject the idea of a single European fleet managed and policed from Brussels.
The previous Government were clear about the priority that we attached to those issues, in particular to the quota-hopping protocol. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said:
The IGC won't come to a successful conclusion until we are satisfied that among our other objectives the problem of quota hopping is resolved satisfactorily.
That was our approach. By contrast, the present Government did not even try. Instead of a treaty amendment, the Prime Minister settled for a letter that has no binding legal effect whatever. The Prime Minister must have known that it has no legal effect. Indeed, it does not claim to do more than clarify the existing legal position.
The Spanish Government have made it clear—this is an interesting point in view of the intervention from the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—that, if they feel that their rights are being weakened in any way by action based on that letter, they will turn again to the European Court of Justice. One year on from this celebrated exchange of correspondence, it has yet to lead to any result. What we saw on this issue at Amsterdam was nothing short of surrender.
The Prime Minister broke his promises, tossed aside his pledges and failed to fight for Britain's fishermen. That is why I invite the House to reject the Government motion and to agree with the Lords in their amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: That was an interesting exercise in exculpation from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—an apologia for a Government who, for 18 years, did little for fishing except stand by and watch it be restructured by bankruptcy and liquidation. To hear an ex-Minister say that, if the previous Government had not got what they wanted in Amsterdam they would have wrecked the entire conference—

Mr. Howard: No.

Mr. Mitchell: That was the implication to be drawn from what was said.

Mr. Howard: We are not producing a new statement. The then Prime Minister made it absolutely clear before the intergovernmental conference. This is not a new invention: it is consistent with what we were saying at the time.

Mr. Mitchell: It is a fairy story to suggest that the Conservative Government, had they been lucky enough to retain office after the election, would have gone to such lengths as wrecking the conference to get anything done about quota hopping. It is fantasy, and we all know it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman insults the intelligence of the House by bleating on about that.

Mr. Howard: If it is fantasy, why did the present Prime Minister say, just days before the election, that he intended to do precisely the same thing?

Mr. Mitchell: He did not say that. The statement came from the former Prime Minister, who had always gone

to European Councils bleating on about what he and his Government were going to do, how they were going to fight for Britain—

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should let me finish my sentence before he interrupts.
The Conservative Government bleated about what they were going to do, but they came back with their tail between their legs because they had done nothing.

Mr. Howard: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's stream of invective, but he must get his facts right. Just days before the election, the present Prime Minister said:
We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interests … Where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are.
The present Prime Minister said that just before the election, when he was trying to persuade people to vote for him, and that there was absolutely no difference whatever between his party's position on the issue and that of the then Government.

Mr. Mitchell: "We have not ruled it out" does not mean "We have ruled it in". There was no unequivocal statement from Labour at that stage to the effect that we would wreck the conference in the way that the then Prime Minister argued he would. Those are the facts, and it is no use arguing about it now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I both know what happened.
Later in my speech I shall deal with the position in which we ended up. We were let down by the conference and, in my view, we were not firm enough, but there was no commitment, of the kind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies, to wreck the conference—and it would have had to be that way for us to get anywhere on this issue. That apologia for 18 years of Tory failure in fishing policy will not hold water. It is simply incredible, even in relation to the arguments about the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which came eight years too late.
For eight years, Members representing fishing constituencies had been warning that there was a growing problem—that quota hoppers were taking over the British fleet. Owners of British vessels who were going bankrupt and unable to make a return were being forced to sell their licences, and the Europeans were buying them. The Government did nothing while the cancer grew on the fishing industry until it became ineradicable. To say now that the previous Government tried to do something about it is just another of the incredible claims in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: We have just listened to a panoply of excuses as to why the Government, now they have the power to do so, are not prepared to cut out the cancer. The hon. Gentleman should be asking the Government why they now suffer from inertia.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady and I rarely disagree, and I take no pleasure in disagreeing with her now, but nothing can be done about the problem until we can close


the door. We cannot close the door without changing the treaty of Rome and the condition that businesses can be established in any European country. Until something is done about that, it will be impossible to tackle the basic issue.
I agree that the measures that we are proposing are not adequate. I agree that they are fig leaves, and I shall continue to say so in the course of my speech—although I would rather do so on my terms than on the hon. Lady's. However, that does not affect the basic issue. We could not have made that basic change without putting a spanner in the works of the conference, which no new incoming Government would do. Indeed, the outgoing Government would not have done so, either.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell: No. I must move on.
The British fishing industry has suffered for years from the exchange of party political point scoring, which has done nothing for it. Each side of the House has said, "We are tougher than you are on Europe," and has then given way to Europe. Each side has done nothing for the fishing industry and has let it decline, always sacrificing it to other interests and issues that are considered more important at the time. Fishing Ministers have been pathetic. It is not their fault, but that of the Government, who always have other priorities and do not regard fishing as important. That is the real problem.
The Lords amendment states:
This Act shall come into force only when … the legal protection of British fishermen afforded by the Treaty of Amsterdam on the issue of quota-hopping
is considered. That is easily dealt with. There is no legal protection against quota hopping in the treaty of Amsterdam. It is a half-baked amendment. It was the only one that the Lords could get through, and, frankly, it is useless. What is the use of asking us to consider the protection offered by a treaty against quota hopping, when the treaty makes no mention of quota hopping or any protection? There was an exchange of letters and that was all. Frankly, it is a pathetic amendment, and we are wasting the time of the House discussing it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Whether the previous Government were useless or the present Government are useless—I am not experienced enough to judge that—does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the only effective way of achieving anything on this vital issue is to say that the treaty does not go through until something is done? Although it is not mentioned in the treaty, the hon. Gentleman knows that that can be achieved in other Councils. Does he agree that, if he wants to get something done—as he clearly does—no matter which Government are in power, the right thing to do is to follow the course of action preferred by the Lords and say that the treaty cannot come into force until something is done about fishing?

Mr. Mitchell: I wish that we had the power to say that. It is a footling, pointless treaty, and it was the outcome of a footling, pointless summit that achieved no agreement. Brave hopes were held out as to what it would achieve,

and in the end they came to nothing except a half-baked compromise. It is a pathetic, lame, limping treaty, but we have passed it. I did not vote for it and I do not support it, but it has been passed and the Government will accept it whatever we say. Theoretically, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, but for practical purposes he is wrong, and that is about all I can say.
The amendment raises two issues. The first is the effect of the treaty, and of other treaties—I tried to include them in the debate by tabling an amendment—on the common fisheries policy. The common fisheries policy is based on the principle of equal access to a common resource in which we have national quotas, but only as an interim measure.
The treaty of Corfu, which we also have to take into account, says, in relation to the accession of Finland and Sweden:
the arrangements for access laid down … shall apply only during a transitional period, the end of which shall be marked by the date of implementation of the Community fishing permit system".
In other words, the treaty of Corfu presupposes the end of the common fisheries policy and the advent of what must be a European fleet—a Community fishing permit system. It is there in the treaty.
My understanding is that the Spanish managed to secure a comparatively small wording change to the treaty that was not noticed by the Foreign Office. We are committed by that treaty to a scheme which I have never heard of and know nothing about but which is due to come in from 2003, providing for a Community fishing permit system. The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), said:
The Finnish and Swedish accessions do not in any way prejudice the outcome of the eventual revision of the CFP basic regulation.
However, that is not what the Corfu treaty says.
I want to know from my hon. Friend the Minister who is right on the issue. What are we to make of the treaty of Corfu? What does it mean? My hon. Friend has written to me and I am grateful for his explanation, as I find the issues difficult to follow. He is a good friend, and in a sense a good educator, on these matters, which are extremely complex. In his letter to Fishing News on 1 May 1998, my hon. Friend writes:
There is no proposal to create a single European fishing fleet administered from Brussels. If there were to be one, this Government would oppose it.
He is absolutely right; so would I.
The letter continues:
The system of quotas on relative stability will be reviewed by the end of 2002. But it does not expire then and will continue unaltered unless the Council decides otherwise.
However, the treaty of Corfu says not, so who is correct? Can the derogations that we have be superior to a treaty that we have also signed saying that there will be a fishing permit system? That is the nature of the question.
I am therefore asking my hon. Friend what will happen on the issue. I hope that he will turn his attention to it in his reply. The question hanging over fishing, on which my he may leap to his feet to put me right, has been much discussed in Fishing News, which is a major part of my reading. I do not like The Guardian very much any more, so I compensate by reading Fishing News obsessively—and very educational and good reading it is, too. I need the alternative view to be put.
I turn, finally, to the problem of quota hoppers and access. The principle of equal access to a common resource was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, given away by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), when he was Prime Minister, with no regard to the interests of British fishing industry. It is practically impossible to push the Sisyphean stone back up the hill, because we are tied by that principle. We cannot manage or control our own fishery grounds, because everyone has equal access to a common resource. Even Luxembourg and Austria can set up their own fishing fleets and have equal access to a common resource.
The problem is that of stopping quota hoppers. If we cannot—if there is no power legally to do so—we will not be able to close the door to any more. The British fishing industry is encountering more difficulty. English fishing particularly is very difficult. English fishermen are not making adequate returns; prices have not risen to support increased costs; and fishermen are handicapped by small quotas and the weight of restriction that is growing around their necks. That means that they will be in financial difficulty, that there will be more temptation to sell, and that quota hoppers will play an increasing part in most ports.
The industry will be wondering what it can do, and will perhaps conclude that it should keep the quota hoppers because at least they bring some economic activity to the ports. It will say that, since there are no Grimsby or Lowestoft vessels, it will have to have quota hoppers. If we can close the door, we can do something about the problem. If we cannot, we will be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
The Amsterdam exchange of letters did not achieve very much. It was just a fairly typical Euro-con. Proposals that had been hanging around and discussed for many months were taken up. They sounded as though they would achieve something, and were given to a new Prime Minister—who I think was not well briefed by the Foreign Office, since it does not have any expertise on such issues and lets us down perpetually. Neither side of the argument would have disrupted the conference—certainly not an incoming Government—to get their way on quota hopping, so the Prime Minister seized on the proposals as a way out. He arrived at Northolt airport holding a piece of paper, which said something like "No quota hoppers in our time"—and nothing happened.
That is a fairly typical Euro-con: a paper is presented, giving hope, but nothing happens and the issue is forgotten. Lord Whitty, Labour's Front-Bench spokesman on the issue in another place, gave a very honest view when he said that not much was achieved, that we could not achieve very much, that the situation was impossible, and that the Prime Minister was offered a deal that was rehashed from an earlier scheme.
The situation is a mess, but it is no use trying to deal with it by tabling an amendment such as that before us. That is pathetic. Nor is it adequate to try to deal with it through the restrictions that we are introducing. I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to do, which is to require 50 per cent. of the landings in UK ports or 50 per cent. of crews to be of British origin.
I notice that advertisements are already appearing in the newspapers—certainly in Lowestoft—so that Dutch-owned vessels can have a 50 per cent. British crew and be exempt from the regulations. Other factors have been mentioned, such as operational spending in UK coastal areas and benefits to areas dependent on fishing.
We must decide—I know that my hon. Friend will consult the industry closely on the matter, because he has to—whether it is worth pursuing such measures, or whether they will create more difficulties for the remaining British vessels than they will for the quota hoppers whom they are meant to threaten. Life may be made marginally more difficult for quota hoppers at the expense of making life very much more difficult for British vessels.
There are certainly worries in Grimsby. Vessels from there are accustomed to landing where prices are high. It is a matter of routine to land in places such as Holland and Denmark. If such vessels are to be restricted, and their activities shackled, perhaps the game is not worth the candle. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that very seriously.
One cannot talk to all fishermen. A Member of Parliament is like a cushion: he bears the impression of whoever last sat on him. Fishermen are accustomed to putting their case in strong language. They have said to me, "It's over. We have fought the fight; we have not got anywhere. We have done our best. We required something more basic than we have been able to achieve. Let's give up, gi'over and stop trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted." That is perhaps a typical British approach to the European Union. We always play the game, and we always lose. It is a question of inevitability.
The only way out is to withdraw from the common fisheries policy altogether. It has been a disaster; it has done the country no good; it has been ruinous for the industry. If the Government say that we cannot do that because we must be nice to Europe and cannot rock the boat because it would harm our relationship with the EU, it is incumbent on them to do more for fishing. Fishing cannot be the sacrificial victim to any Government's superior loyalty to Europe.
I do not want the fishing industry to be in such a position. It is incumbent on the Government to stop the imposition of charges that is being considered; to stop the petty harassment; and to stop deluging the industry with new policies and new requirements with which it cannot keep up. The fishing industry is now a small-boat industry, run by people who are at sea and who do not have the professional backing and support in order to cope.
The producers' organisations should be given the finance and the power to buy and manage their own quotas, and we should ensure that the measures imposed are applied in Europe as well as to British vessels. A level playing field—perhaps a level fishing ground is a more appropriate expression—would be acceptable. Requirements cannot be imposed unilaterally on the British fleet. Catches cannot be vigorously inspected, and efforts to deal with black fish cannot be made in this country if nothing happens in Europe.
A skipper landing in Boulogne, for instance, said that he had great difficulty finding anyone to accept his log sheets. In Britain, they grab them from him and rush away


to check them with a view to initiating a prosecution if any dereliction of duty is discovered. In France and Holland, nobody is interested; controls are not enforced. Until there is equal enforcement, the fishing industry cannot and will not put up with the mass of requirements.
I know that my hon. Friend will fight for fishing and for the national management regime that the National Federation of Fishermens Organisations and the Scottish Fishermens Federation have put to him. But he must fight for, help and support the industry more vigorously if fishing will otherwise be sacrificed to the Government's overall European aspirations.

Mr. Gummer: I declare an interest as the voluntary chairman of the Marine Stewardship Council and as the Member for a constituency with 74 miles of coastline and a large number of fishermen.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), not least because, when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I spent a great deal of time trying to persuade him to fight against the dock labour scheme, which was one of the two great factors destroying the port of Grimsby. He complains about the previous Government not standing up for anything and mewling and puking, but he let his fishermen down every day because he never broke the party line on the dock labour scheme. He could have made a huge difference to the fishing industry when he was given the challenge. I find it difficult to accept his complaints about the current Government or the previous one when I remember how hard I tried to get him on my side to help to bring about a change that really mattered.

Mr. Mitchell: rose—

8 pm

Mr. Gummer: I shall be pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to finish my point so that he can be even ruder to me.
There was a chance of securing a joint operation to exempt the fishing ports from the dock labour scheme before the system was abolished, but I never received any support from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mitchell: That is wishful thinking, not an accurate representation of the facts. The ending of the dock labour scheme was not proposed while the right hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The proposal came out of the blue. I am subject to his correction, but I do not remember him even mentioning it to me as a cause of Grimsby's problems.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may read Fishing News, but he has not read the statements that I made in his constituency about the need to change the dock labour scheme, even if only for the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous constituency Member and I know why he made no comment on the issue—he knew that his general management committee and the Labour party would not have supported him. I find his comments about how tough he would be difficult to take.
The debate is not about our views on the fishing industry or our attitude to the European Union; it is about what the Government promised and what they delivered. I hope that my hon. Friends will keep the battle on that

issue. It does not matter what industry we are talking about—it could be the baking industry or the leather industry. The fishing industry was led to believe one thing before the election and got a wholly different policy after the election.
The Prime Minister was particularly keen on talking about trust. Trust is about not just not saying the wrong thing, but not giving the wrong impression. In a famous interview and subsequently, he made it clear in the most charming and reassuring way that he would be tougher in the intergovernmental conference than my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The argument went on and on. When he got there, he was not even as tough as my right hon. Friend. He did not raise the matter as he had said he would. The problem was not that he raised the matter and failed; he did not raise it. Regardless of whether we are pro or anti-Europe, keen on fishing or not, that was a betrayal of a clear promise.
We are talking not about a Euro-con, but a Prime Minister con—a Blair con. I notice that Ministers are being very quiet, because they know that what I am saying is true. It was a con in two ways: first in what the Prime Minister and other current Ministers said before the election, given what happened afterwards; and, secondly, in the Prime Minister's suggestion of what the letter meant.
We all know about letters in such circumstances. I am not as rude about them as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Often, the Commission can make it easier to sort out a difficult point. However, the fisheries problem could not be sorted out in that way. It is an issue of considerable difficulty, because there is a conflict between the basic principles of the common fisheries policy, which shared out the fishing opportunities by countries, and the basic principle of the treaty of Rome, which talks about common resources, which are not shared out in that way—and rightly so, because we need a single market, which the Conservatives, particularly my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, so strongly promoted. That means that we cannot have a protectionist system that gives particular access to certain nationalities.
That conflict cannot be removed in the Council of Ministers; it has to be dealt with at an IGC. The Minister who opened the debate asked why the previous Government did not raise such matters in Council meetings. That shows that he has not got the point. We could have raised the issue in Council meetings until we were blue in the face and had all 15 member states on our side, but the problem lies at the heart of the treaties to which we have all adhered, and is difficult to solve. It cannot be solved outside an IGC. The Government were wrong to say before the general election that they would solve it at the IGC, then tamely going along after the election with a piece of paper.

Dr. George Turner: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman carefully, and would like to understand. I appreciate that an event may happen only once every six years or so, but presumably the preparation starts much earlier. A Government arrive at the conference knowing that they have a task in hand, with a certain number of countries backing them and others still to persuade. How many countries were going to support the previous Government at the IGC?

Mr. Gummer: As a former Prime Minister said, even when one is on one's own, one fights for that which is in


Britain's interests. The present Prime Minister said that he would do the same. We can bandy words about who should say this, who did that and whether we or the current Government could have done more, but the fundamental issue of the amendment is that the Government promised to do something that they have not done. That is wrong and should be highlighted. That is why I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who said that the amendment was of no use. It is of considerable use, because it has enabled us to discuss this key issue in the House. The Government promised to do something. Not only did they not deliver that, but they pretended that they had delivered it, hoping that people would be conned. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby knows that calling the issue a Euro-con merely diverts attention from the terminological inexactitude of his Prime Minister.

Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend will know that I never object to strictures—certainly not from right hon. Gentlemen; we have got used to those. I do not disagree with his fundamental point that the Prime Minister has let down the fishing industry and his party by failing to carry out his promises. My concern was that the amendment was insubstantial and that, given its majority, the House of Lords could have passed many other amendments on other issues.

Mr. Gummer: I am glad my hon. Friend and I agree on at least one interpretation of the matter, which is that it gives us the opportunity to have this discussion. We ought to concentrate it on the area in which we have an important point, because we are asked to complete the agreement on the Amsterdam treaty.
As hon. Members will know, I am in favour of the treaty. I am happy with it. It is a good treaty. I do not object to it in any way—

Mr. Cash: Why did you vote against it, then?

Mr. Gummer: Because we were given to understand that the treaty would have more in it, and I can tell my hon. Friend what those two things were.
First, the treaty was supposed to provide the basis for the adhesion of new countries to the European Union. In fact, it did not face up to any of those issues. It made none of the decisions that it was supposed to make. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has made that point again and again.
Secondly, the treaty did nothing about the fisheries problem, although the Government had promised that it would. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby suggests that the Government knew all along that they could do nothing about that, and in doing so he is telling us what we always believed—that, before the election, people were prepared to promise anything, even that which they knew they could not carry through.
It is the hon. Member for Great Grimsby who is making the really deep attack on his own Prime Minister. He is saying that, when the question was put to him, the Prime Minister should not have said:
We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest",

as he did on "The World at One" on 14 April 1997. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman should have said, "We know there is no point holding that out as a hope to the fishing industry, because we have no intention of doing it." He must have known that he had no intention of doing it, because immediately after the election he did not do it.
Not only did the Prime Minister not try to do that, but he gave no sign of having mastered the brief or understood what it really meant. Therefore, the first reason why I want the House to pass the amendment is that I want it to stand as a permanent memorial to the fact that the Prime Minister says what is convenient to him at the time, rather than what is true.
From a Prime Minister who claimed to believe in trust, that was one of the first examples of what has now become a regular activity—giving the impression of one thing while meaning precisely the opposite. As my mother always said, to give such an impression is the same as telling a lie. Just because someone has left an impression, without actually saying the word that he can be caught out on, that does not mean that he is any less guilty, especially if he claims to be a man in whom trust may properly be reposed.
The second issue that the amendment brings forward is the problem of the fishing industry as a whole. As the voluntary chairman of the Marine Stewardship Council, I can say that the real problem about quota hopping, or any other argument about fish stocks and the like, is that we do not have enough fish.
If we read accounts from the 19th century, we realise that there was a huge harvest of fish out there then. A good example is to be found in the autobiography of a man who became an archbishop, who had earlier sailed as a cabin boy on a big boat that went to the Baltic. Apparently the boat had to stay in port for three days there, because so thick were the shoals of fish that it could not get out.
That was common in a world in which the fishermen had none of the modern techniques. They had no directional finders to tell them exactly where the boat was, nor did they have the kind of radar that showed them where the fish were. Fishing was a much more haphazard activity then. Nowadays, we often know so much that the fish do not have a hope.
That is true of all the fishing industries in Europe—and not only there. To those of my hon. Friends who do not want to me talk about Europe, I can say that it applies elsewhere in the world, too. All over the world, from the South China seas to the Falkland Islands, we are in severe danger of losing all our fish stocks.
8.15 pm
Sir Crispin Tickell is the chairman of the Government panel on sustainable development, and in his first report to the previous Government, among other things that one would expect him to put in a list of priorities, he put a surprising item. He pointed out that the most imminent ecological disaster is the loss of our fish stocks. That applies not only to Europe but to the whole world.
One of the problems is that every fisherman is concerned to get his share, irrespective of other people's share. One understands that; every fisherman needs his own future, and is sometimes less concerned about the future of his children and grandchildren. Overfishing is a real problem, to which we need to find an answer not only in Europe but throughout the world.
It seems to me that we do not solve that problem by constantly suggesting "solutions" such as those put forward by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. The truth is that we have too few fish and too many fishermen after them, both in Europe and in the rest of the world. We need to return to a more sustainable fishing system, and in Europe that has to be done through the Community and the Council of Ministers. However, it cannot be done there effectively unless changes have first been made to create an atmosphere in which it can be done. The Government's failure to do that means that they are very much in error.
The third issue is that of quota hoppers. I have always thought that "quota hopping" is a rather nice phrase. Using it is rather like using the word "foetus" instead of the word "baby". If we want people to believe that it is all right to destroy babies, we can call them foetuses and get rid of them. That is how that sort of terminology operates. Similarly, using the term "quota hoppers" seems to suggest that nobody bought the quotas.
People put forward all sorts of arguments about why the quotas were sold, but one of our big problems is the fact that quotas—in large part, if not entirely—were bought by somebody. To say that quota hoppers can easily be stopped is to make the whole issue much less complicated than it really is.
Fishermen sold their quotas and received money for them. Those who paid for them—rightly in terms of the law, but wrongly in terms of the share-out that we had expected to take place—expect to be able to carry them through. I hope that, when we talk about quota hopping, we realise that the issue is more complicated than it seems.
That is why the only place in which it can be dealt with is the intergovernmental conference. The present Government should not have misled this country if they had no intention of doing what they said they would. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, would not have held up the IGC. My reply is simply that I cannot point to one occasion during his period as Prime Minister when my right hon. Friend promised to do something and did not carry it out; yet, in one year of the present Prime Minister, hardly a week has passed without something happening that is the exact opposite of what was promised.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: I ought to be coming to an end.
It is necessary to have a common fisheries policy. The complaint about the fisheries policy is that the policy is wrong, not that it is common. Fisheries policy has always been common; even the 12-mile limit was shared with some of our neighbours over a long period. Fish do not come along with flags on their fins. Fish and fisheries have to be organised on a common basis. Where that has not happened, stocks are fished out because people think, "If I don't get the fish, my neighbour will." The system must be common. The common fisheries policy is wrong because the policy is wrong, but the commonality is right.
I always remember that, when I was a Minister responsible for fisheries, the fishermen used to tell me, "Don't ever renegotiate the common fisheries policy," because my late lamented right hon. Friend, the Scottish

Minister Alick Buchanan-Smith, had negotiated not only the fair sharing out of the fish stocks, but an extra amount for us because we were no longer allowed to fish off Iceland. It was heralded at the time as a great deal. Every time we were negotiating, the one thing the fisheries industry said was that we should not renegotiate the deal because we would never get the same proportion again.
If we are to solve the problems, we must first be honest with the fishing industry. That means that we must find a way of restricting effort across Europe until fishing stocks recover. We must become more sustainable. We must realise that the policy must be a common fisheries policy, but we must recognise also that the present policy does not work. It must be revised fundamentally without reducing the shares—not least our share in the UK.
Some of us are in favour of the EU, enthusiastic about the concept of solving the problems on a common basis, and—above all—concerned about the environment. We have come here to debate the amendment—useless as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone thinks it to be—because, without question, it puts its finger on the fact that the Government, the Minister with responsibility for fisheries and the Prime Minister appear to have fundamentally changed their position since before the election.
When it was a question of getting votes, Labour Members said that they would stand up for change at the IGC and would hold it up. Today, we are asked to pass the results of the IGC, and to hope for the best on fishing. That is not what the Government promised, and they know it. That is why the Minister they put up to argue the case has no record or form on the issue, and why the Minister responsible for fisheries did not move the motion. If he had done so, he would have had to explain why his position before the election was much tougher than now. If the Minister is to wind up, he might explain his rudeness to the House in not being here when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe started his speech and made some good comments. It would be good for the House to know why the Minister was not here.
The Government are running away from the fact that they told us before the general election something that they changed entirely afterwards—once they had the fishing votes in their pockets.

Dr. Godman: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). He is a fair-minded fellow, so I am sure that he will forgive me if I remind the House that, when he was Fisheries Minister, he presided over a massive cock-up over the decommissioning scheme for which the Public Accounts Committee criticised his Department—using more elegant language. Fishermen from the smaller fishing communities say that the Humberside trawler companies ripped off the scheme that the right hon. Gentleman so badly managed with his inept colleagues and officials.
I share the anger and cynicism of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I have been around the industry all my life. I was born and raised in a fishing community. My brother Leslie is the skipper of a freezer trawler which is fishing up in the Arctic at this very moment. My mother was a fishergirl and my father was a fisherman, so I know something of the industry.
The Government of which the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was a member betrayed the fishing communities, so much so that the Scottish secessionists—who, characteristically, are absent from such an important debate—are now telling fishing communities in Scotland that the way forward is an independent Scotland and a renegotiation of the common fisheries policy for Scotland. They are leading the fishing communities up a blind alley—we know that—but they are not here to defend themselves against these charges. In their way, what they say is characterised by the same smugness and hypocrisy that we have heard from the Conservatives today.
During my life in and around the industry, successive Administrations have betrayed the interests of our fishing industry. One or two hon. Members in the Chamber at present know that. The United Kingdom-Icelandic fisheries dispute—popularly known as the cod wars—is an example. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Conservative Governments and Labour Governments betrayed our fishermen. I recall the negotiations offered to us by the Icelandic Government. A Labour Foreign Minister—now the noble Lord Hattersley—did not do our fishermen any good in the negotiations. In that regard, he was as inept as negotiators representing Tory Governments and the Ministry.
A Tory Prime Minister used our fishing communities as a bargaining counter—a pawn—to gain access to the then European Economic Community. On the basis of what happened to my brother, cousins, uncles and others, I can say that the industry was betrayed by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. I am trying to be fair-minded, and Labour Governments do not have a much better record.
Let us have honesty from both sides of the House. We are talking about the treatment of the industry and our communities—whether it is Hull, Grimsby, Lowestoft, Yarmouth or any of the communities closer to my constituency. I am the honorary chairman of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, a small fishing vessel owners' association. Those people are struggling to make a living.
As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, quota hopping is a complicated problem. He was right to say that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish, and he was right also to say that we cannot leave the management of fishing to the fishermen. It is a disaster to leave it to the bureaucrats in Brussels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby is right to say that the kernel of the serious problem bedevilling our fishing industry and communities is the common fisheries policy. How do we change that? Do we go down the secessionist road in Scotland and kid people that we can renegotiate the CFP on the basis of an independent Scotland? That is rubbish.
We must ensure that, from now on, we negotiate in a tough-minded way on behalf of our communities. I say to Ministers—I have said this to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that there can be no enlargement of the EU without reform of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. Some of the applicant nations are maritime nations. If there is no reform of the CFP, they will be allowed to fish in our waters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby described the fish as a common resource. I would say that a reformed CFP must take cognisance of the interests of local fishermen, and privilege must be given to locally based fishermen against the interests of the big boys—the nomadic fishermen from Holland, Spain or, dare I say it, the north-east of Scotland. We recently argued that we should not allow the purse seine trawlers and others to fish off the west coast of Scotland with their twin prawn trawls. We must protect local communities. The common fisheries policy must be radically reformed before enlargement can take place.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I say how much I support what the hon. Gentleman has said about the fate of the smaller fishing vessels, in particular those based in village fishing communities, of which there are a number in my constituency? Whatever happens, the pressure is finally taken out on those at the bottom of the chain of effort. As he rightly said, something must be done to protect those communities, many of which have no economic basis other than fishing.

Dr. Godman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. We have only to think of Anstruther—I think that it is known locally as Anster—Pittenweem and St. Monans. We are talking not only about fishermen and their families, but about fishing boat builders, who have largely disappeared from the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. They were superb builders of wooden fishing boats—I speak as a shipwright, so I know what I am talking about. Millers of St. Monans has gone, for example. Like the fishermen, those engaged in the ancillary activities are also deprived of a decent livelihood because of the rotten common fisheries policy.
It is one thing to talk about equality of access, but we have to start to talk in terms of regional preference and regional—not necessarily national—management schemes, to take account of the needs of the more remote communities where there are few economic alternatives, such as the communities in Shetland, Orkney, on the west coast of Scotland and, indeed, in the south-west and other areas of England. Ministers have to do much better than their predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, whose record left a lot to be desired.
How will the measures that were outlined be policed? How can we ensure that 50 per cent. of the catch of so-called quota hoppers will be landed in Scarborough, Hull, Grimsby, Lowestoft or Aberdeen?

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Or Anstruther.

Dr. Godman: The quota hoppers would not get into Anstruther; unfortunately, they are too big.
The Minister talks about expenditure, but are we to expect from what he says that some of the vessels will undergo annual refits in our shipyards rather than in shipyards in their own countries? Somehow I doubt that they will, although I would love to see it. Refits are an essential and integral element of the annual expenditure incurred by trawler owners.
The key question is the power of the fisheries policemen—I should say policewomen, too. Again, our record is not great. We could learn from the Norwegians,


for example, who police their fisheries very powerfully—it is a reckless skipper who sails to Norway from Scotland or England without having all his papers in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talks about the toughness of our inspectors, but he should take a trip on a British vessel fishing in Norwegian waters—people dare not break the law there, because, if they are caught, they are never allowed back into those waters. That is the toughness I want.
Tough policing will be needed if the Minister is to convince our deeply disillusioned fishing communities that, unlike previous Administrations, the Government mean business and will both protect and promote the interests of our sadly neglected fishing communities. Nothing less will do.

Mr. Townend: In these debates, I respect hon. Members on both sides of the House who speak for the fishing industry and their constituents. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said. He was right to say that the common fisheries policy has been a disaster, particularly for British fishermen, including those in my constituency. I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that, if the common fisheries policy had worked, there would not be a shortage of fish. The whole purpose of quotas was to conserve fish so that each year the stocks, and therefore the quotas, would increase.
Britain has done particularly badly. I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was responsible for that, but responsibility also lay with the late Lord Wilson, who missed a great opportunity—when he renegotiated Britain's terms of membership of the European Community after the referendum, he ignored fishing. The fishing industry has not been well treated by any Government. I will not be popular among my hon. Friends for saying that, but we should be honest.
Britain suffered particularly because our waters provide 60 per cent. of the European Union's fish—the industry sometimes says 80 per cent.—yet the common fisheries policy gives us a quota of only 31 per cent. Even that deal, which in no circumstances could be considered good for this country, is being extensively undermined by quota hopping. If no action is taken, the national quota will, each year, diminish progressively as more and more foreigners buy our boats.
By 1997—the most up-to-date figures I could get-46 per cent. of hake, 44 per cent. of plaice, 29 per cent. of monkfish and 20 per cent. of sole was taken by quota hoppers. That is a significant amount of fish. Quota hopping is undermining the principle of relative stability that was established in 1983, when the intention was that quotas were for the fishermen of the individual countries.
Some of the criticism of the previous Government has been unfair. Baroness Thatcher introduced the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which some Labour Members supported, to protect the British fishing industry. The House passed that Act but, regrettably, the will of the House was overruled by the European Court. That decision stopped the House passing legislation to protect our fishermen, which, more than anything else, made me realise how much independence we had surrendered to Brussels and how, if we did not start to pull power back, the House would become nothing more than a glorified county council or provincial assembly.
The previous Government realised that, because of the court's decision, the industry could not be protected without a treaty change. The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), made a commitment before and at the general election last year that he would refrain from signing the Amsterdam treaty unless a change was incorporated to deal with the problem of quota hopping.
At the election, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, the current Prime Minister followed whatever the Conservatives said—on spending, tax, a referendum for Europe, or fishing. He was so frightened that he would not win that he followed us in all things—we have heard this evening what he said at the time. However, not only the Prime Minister but Labour candidates throughout the country, including those in fishing constituencies, said, "You will be safe with Labour. Labour will protect your interests. We won't accept the Amsterdam treaty without looking after you." As a result, the Conservatives lost nearly every major fishing port, apart from Brixham and Bridlington, which is in my constituency.

Sir Richard Body: And Boston.

Mr. Townend: I do not want to argue with my hon. Friend about the definition of "major".
When it came to decision time, what did the Government do? They forgot all about the comments made by Fisheries Ministers and the Prime Minister, and signed the Amsterdam treaty without achieving anything concrete for our fishermen. As is usual in Europe, it was fudge and weasel words, and nothing was delivered. After one year in power, new Labour has betrayed British fishermen.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Don't be daft.

Mr. Townend: I asked the hon. Gentleman how much fish we will get if he is successful in the negotiations. He said that he did not know, but read out the various options. None of them would give an extra tonne of fish to British fishing boats. That proves another thing. Before the election, Labour Members were keen to say that, if they were elected they would be able to get a better deal out of Europe. They said: "We're more pro-European. We'll cosy up to them and get satisfaction through co-operation." What did all that cosying up, co-operation, giving in and signing the Amsterdam treaty without any conditions achieve for British fishermen? Nothing.
The only way in which any Government will get satisfaction on quota hoppers is at a treaty negotiation. The only way they will get it is to play it like the French do. Not only have the Government got to threaten to use the veto; if necessary, they have got to use it where an overwhelmingly important national interest is at stake.
I have represented Bridlington for many years, and I believe that fishing is an overwhelming national interest. I also believe that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, the former Prime Minister, said that he would veto Amsterdam if he had to, he would have been


prepared to do so. Once the other states knew that he was prepared to use it, they would have been prepared to do a deal.
We have only to look at the way in which the French work. It was 13 to one over the appointment of the governor of the new European central bank, but the French exercised their veto and got an agreement that after four years their man would be in. Whether our Government are Conservative or Labour, they should be prepared to fight just as strongly and just as fiercely for British interests and for the interests of British fishermen.

Mr. Morley: It is difficult to criticise the hon. Gentleman when he is being so honest about the failings of past Conservative Governments, but he knows as well as I do that the Conservative Government could have used their veto on the accession of Finland, Austria and Sweden when the Spanish threatened to use their veto and, indeed, got accelerated full fishing access to Community waters through doing so. Will he remind the House what that Government did at that time?

Mr. Townend: We get this time and again. I agree that we could have vetoed many things, but the simple fact is that that is not the question. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal is right—you are the Government and you are responsible for the fishing industry today. It does not matter what we should have done or might have done: you have failed in the past year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is speaking through the Chair—and I have no responsibility for these matters.

Mr. Townend: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister and the Labour Government are responsible, but time after time and in Question Time after Question Time as we hold the Executive to account, they never answer our questions. They seem to think that they can refuse to be held to account by harking back to what happened under the previous Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, this debate is about the commitment that the present Minister and Prime Minister gave at the election.
Most people do not realise the extent of quota hopping—I sometimes wonder whether the Minister realises, although he must. I understand that 26 per cent. of fishing tonnage on the United Kingdom register is now owned by quota hoppers, and that £100 million of fish landings are being lost every year. By and large, quota hoppers do not take advantage of the decommissioning schemes, so the proportion of our fish taken by quota hoppers is increasing all the time.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—I nearly called him my hon. Friend because I agree with him so much as a neighbouring fishing Member—and, like him, I am afraid that I am pessimistic. Unless the Government change their attitude, the outlook for British fishing is very bleak, as I think the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde would agree.
In the early years of the next century there will be no British fishing industry; it will be a European industry with permits issued from Brussels and boats fishing up to

the beaches. What a terrible end that will be to tradition in a maritime country—in our islands, surrounded by sea—whose history and prosperity have been linked with the sea; what a terrible end it will be given the faith that we and the British people have had in the men who go to sea in small boats to fish. It is a terrible prospect, and the Government should start thinking about their responsibilities to the fishing industry. They should forget what has gone on before and think about their responsibilities to ensure that in 2003 and 2004 we still have a viable, large British fishing industry.

Dr. George Turner: I have been told that, in time, hon. Members become like their constituents. Listening to the passion with which those who represent fishing communities speak in the House, I recognise the fisherman I have had to deal with more recently in King's Lynn. Fishing is an industry and an occupation that has suffered much in past decades.
I ask the House to look a little more dispassionately at what is on our agenda. As one who has come into contact with Members of the other place in Joint Committees, I looked with interest to see why the amendment was before us. The role of the other House is under question, so I assumed that the amendment was the result of the more learned Members of that place discovering something about the consequences of Amsterdam of which this House has been ignorant for some months.
My inquiries and the information provided in the debate tonight seem to show that there is no such reason, and that we are discussing what was reported to the House as the outcome of the Amsterdam discussions several months ago. I conclude that Members of the other place have been airing their party political prejudices rather than their learnedness about the treaty. It is regrettable that the unelected Members of the other House are behaving in what way, particularly at a rather sensitive time in their history.
As a new Member, I am always sensitive to whether I am defending the party manifesto on which I was elected. I have, however, become accustomed to the fact that, when the Opposition cannot find us at fault because of our manifesto, they selectively quote what might or might not have been said in whatever time period they want to go back to. Of course, if parties do not adjust their positions as they approach the electorate and make clear promises, something is wrong with our political process.
There would be something wrong indeed if, by quoting selectively, it were not possible to show some inconsistencies. Parties have to develop policies. I see the role of opposition as we study Bills, and I see Opposition parties shifting their role even within the time that it takes a Bill to go through a Standing Committee.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the confusion, I accept absolutely the important points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Can he give us some indication of the impression that fishermen in his constituency had of our likely position on the issue in Amsterdam? While he and I may not have understood, what did his fishermen think? I think that he knows pretty well.

Dr. Turner: I was coming to that very point. My hon. Friend the Minister visited my constituency when he was


still in opposition and got what was described to me as a warm reception because he would not promise the fishermen what they wanted. However, his reputation since the election is that he has done more in his period in office than the last Government did in a decade. Fishermen are not satisfied—I do not believe that they ever will be, given what has happened to them over the past decade—but that is what has occurred in my constituency.
I should be interested to know whether I should be reading our manifesto to ensure that no commitment has been broken, but the words that have been cited seem at the very least ambiguous. Apparently we said that we had not ruled something out. That is an interesting pledge to be accused of breaking. We said that we were prepared to be tough at international discussions. Conservative Members have told us that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), would have been really tough, but when I was a member of the public rather than a Member of the House, I saw that Prime Minister barely in control of his Cabinet and certainly not in control of his party; yet he is the man who would have been the tough man of Europe at the intergovernmental conference. Frankly, I do not believe a word of it.

Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman's predecessor and I worked in the Foreign Office for, respectively, the former Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The language used about the intergovernmental conference and the need for a deal on quota hopping was absolute. It left no room for manoeuvre. On the issue of qualified majority voting, for example, Sir Malcolm Rifkind made it quite clear that he would not prejudice the entire treaty if QMV was extended in one area, although he could not foresee that happening. That was a bolt hole. There was no such bolt hole for the Government's position on quota hopping. The treaty would not have happened without a deal on quota hopping under a Conservative Government.

Dr. Turner: I wonder which Conservative Government that would have been, Deputy Speaker. Two Conservative parties fought the last election, and it is not clear which of them would have been in control if the electorate had unfortunately re-elected the Conservatives.
There is a long-standing tradition when it comes to international debate or defending the country internationally; Opposition parties support the Government wherever possible. The Prime Minister's words—he did not rule things out, and he was prepared to defend what the former Prime Minister said in the interests of our fishing industry—were rather carefully chosen and entirely appropriate to that circumstance.
Earlier, in interventions, Deputy Speaker, I asked exactly what preparation had been made. I have had to take over negotiations from others, both in my own job and in union matters. Before taking on a job, people do not sell themselves out or say even before they have arrived that they will give in. They have to assess the hand they have been given, just as any Prime Minister—or a Cabinet Minister assessing his Department—must realistically assess the hand that he has been given with which to negotiate with an IGC that has been waiting for the best part of a decade to raise the issue.
This evening, however, Deputy Speaker, what have I been told about that hand?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to be pernickety, but the form of address for which he is searching is "Mr. Deputy Speaker".

Dr. Turner: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hand that the Government inherited meant that no other member state was prepared to vote with us or support us. Clearly, the national interest should predominate. I understand why people talk emotionally about the overwhelming national interest or the importance to their constituency, but the quota issue is biological. Fish do not come with national labels on them. We cannot look to national interest alone to solve an international problem. International agreement was desirable.
In considering what the Prime Minister brought back for the House to debate, I thought that there was much to be gained if the arrangements he described were brought into force. There would be economic gain for the fishing communities under the economic licensing conditions of options A, B, C and D, which have been referred to and which I shall not repeat. In the modest time I have been here, I have found myself regularly frustrated about the time it takes to develop matters.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Realising that the common fisheries policy is collective might help the hon. Gentleman to understand the difficulties of agreeing anything practical in the European Community. It contrasts with the experience of, shall we say, Norway, which determines its own fishing policy, or of the south Atlantic, in which the Government of the Falkland Islands determine their own policy. Both are extremely successful fisheries, and they are in sharp contrast with what happens with the collective, which cannot reach a proper decision.

Dr. Turner: I read a Library research paper on the history of this matter with considerable interest. I gained the clear impression that we need to proceed with an element of agreement, rather than by assuming that we can simply assert national or constituency interest. Strong economic links were of benefit. I understand that fishermen are disappointed, but that is because of what happened before the Government were elected. I have read that paper, and I have looked back to the failure in the 1980s of the then Government to enact a law that stood the test of European law. The catalogue of disasters falls nowhere short of failure and neglect. The Opposition came naked into the Chamber this evening to try to bury their past neglect, raise false accusations and pretend that life is simple when it is not.
Local fishermen have asked me how long the process will take. I have been told that quota hopping accounts for 25 per cent. of tonnage. I should like clarification on that point, because I have also been told that it accounts for only 10 per cent. of the catch. Other figures have been used. What is the figure, and what is happening about it? When will we get a conclusion to what have been described as fairly protracted discussions?

Mr. David Heath: It is a privilege to speak after so many hon. Members with


greater knowledge of the fishing industry than I have. I was particularly taken by the contributions of the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Neither is now here. Presumably they have gone for a fish-and-chip supper, but no doubt they will appear later.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby properly exposed the great paradox of the debate. The problems of the fishing industry and quota hopping are real issues that should detain the House, and are proper matters for debate. However, this debate is on the pretext of an entirely bogus Lords amendment. It is bogus because of its implications for the Amsterdam Bill. It has been bogus in respect of the positions of the Government and of the official Opposition.
The amendment cannot achieve the changes to the common fisheries policy that many of us would like, if for no other reason than the fact that the Amsterdam treaty does not deal with fishing policy. It is outside the scope of the treaty signed in Amsterdam. Perhaps it should not have been, but it was. To their credit, hon. Members have not attempted to talk to the Lords amendment but have given their views about the CFP and what happened in the negotiations. The only effect of accepting the amendment would be to delay ratification of the Amsterdam treaty.
9 pm
There have been arguments about the Amsterdam treaty. We have had endless discussions about what the Amsterdam Bill might imply for our country. Most suggestions from both sides of the argument rather overstated the case. It is a modest Bill that achieves modest results, but what it does achieve is largely benign, in my view and in that of the majority of the House, as has been tested. To delay ratification by spurious argument about what can be achieved is bogus.

Mr. Gummer: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument and am not at all antagonistic to the Amsterdam treaty. It is not that we are seeking to hold up the treaty, but that the Prime Minister said that he would not sign it unless he had at least tried—

Mr. Morley: He did not say that.

Mr. Gummer: If the Minister means that the Prime Minister was going to sign it without even trying, he has made an even more fundamental attack on the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister gave the country the impression that he would fight for the fishermen at the time of the treaty. He did not. How else can we bring that home to him?

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was trying to make in my own way. There needs to be an argument about the CFP and the Government's negotiating position, but the Lords amendment does not achieve that objective except through the process of having this debate. I think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If so, he is in agreement with my point that the amendment will not secure the changes that we seek in the CFP, but is an opportunity for the House to debate the matter once more. We are taking advantage of that.
The problem with the Government's position largely concerns the position that they adopted on return from Amsterdam. They claimed a great victory and said that they had solved all the world's problems at a stroke. They overplayed the roles played by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Howard: It was an overblown hoo-hah.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that a bit of hoo-hah was involved. There was an awful lot of hoo-hah. Hoo-hah, overblown, tarantara, call it what one will, that is what we got on the return from Amsterdam.
In fact, there was nothing like that sort of success—it was a modest negotiation with modest results. On fishing, all the Prime Minister brought back was a piece of paper—a fig leaf to cover his embarrassment about his lack of progress on an important negotiating issue.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that part of the tarantara and the hoo-hah was the Foreign Secretary having to come to the House and admit that the Government had been completely outflanked in the negotiations by the Spanish, which led to a leader in The Times and a great deal of adverse comment from hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman will remember, from the hours of debate that we shared, several areas in which the Government's performance was less impressive than the advance publicity had suggested—Gibraltar comes to mind as an example.
However, the Government brought back the piece of paper. I do not believe that it has any legally binding consequences. Although it might have elucidated the legal position to an extent, it will be of value only if it is not successfully challenged by the Spanish or by any other nation's fishing fleet. If that is true, we want to know what the Government have done over the past 12 months and what they are doing now to put into practice the principles encompassed by that piece of paper.
I see little sign of progress, but perhaps the Minister will be able to advise me of the progress that has been made over the past 12 months. Many of us who have examined the proposals see advantages in the scheme promoted, but we also see that it is full of loopholes; it is capable of considerable abuse, and might not be successful in achieving its objectives.
The question is: will the so-called economic linkage mean anything in practice? I do not represent a fishing constituency—my constituents catch nothing larger than elvers—but I am not remotely surprised that those who do represent fishing communities and who know what fishermen think of the proposals are extremely disappointed with the results of the negotiations. It is characteristic of the Government to over-hype and over-spin their achievements, which might be why, a couple of weeks ago, the European Parliament was not prepared to congratulate the Government on their exercise of the European Union presidency—MEPs recognise when they are being sold a pup in terms of media spin.
Hyperbole is not the sole province of the Government—the Conservative position is equally suspect. We heard the Conservatives' pre-election claims


for what they were going to do in the intergovernmental conference; they were equally extravagant, yet there was no real preparation other than the preparation of the protocol, and there was no assembling of the essential coalition needed to achieve anything. The previous Government's sole negotiating position was apparently that they would walk away if they did not get their way. We had seen that many times before—a swing from puerile petulance to supine acquiescence when they did not get their own way. No hill was ever reached by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that he did not march his army halfway up and then march it down again.
If we want to see the results of the previous Government's policy in action, we need only look at the progress on the lifting of the beef ban. Nothing was achieved, simply because their only tactic was a spoiling tactic of not negotiating, but making things difficult for the people whose support we actually required. There is nothing more struthious in character than the Conservatives facing a problem in Europe—their position is to hide their heads in the sand and hope that the problem will go away; but it will not go away. What is needed is negotiation, which requires active engagement.
Sensible Conservative Members know that some of the demands expressed before the election were impossible. We heard the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) virtually admit that he had not expected any better a result from the IGC than that which was achieved by the current Government.
The previous Government failed the fishing industry in every possible way for many years, and the present Government are perhaps doing marginally better, but that is to damn with faint praise. No wonder that fishermen despair of all politicians who promised them a new deal for the fishing industry. All Governments since the late 1960s or early 1970s have failed the industry.
We return to the proposition before us and the possibility of delaying or wrecking the Amsterdam treaty. I believe that the treaty is a modest enough vehicle. We have rehearsed the arguments time and again. The treaty makes little progress on the key areas of reform needed in the European Union—on the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy, the structural funds and so on. It edges us marginally in the right direction on subsidiarity, openness, transparency and accountability.
Those are modest but necessary objectives. It would be foolish for the House to reject that modest progress by accepting the Lords amendment. The tragedy is that, if the amendment were accepted, it would not bring about the fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy that we believe is necessary. By 2002, we must be able to renegotiate not just the terms of the intergovernmental conference, but the treaties on which the common fisheries policy is based and move towards a system of regional management that will benefit the fishermen in Scotland, Cornwall and East Anglia. If we do not do that, we shall have signally failed the fishing industry yet again.
We shall not achieve our objectives by making things difficult for others who are trying to achieve the same reforms in the EU. We must have constructive engagement with our partner nations in the EU. I therefore

urge the House to reject the Lords amendment and to proceed with ratification of the Amsterdam treaty at the earliest opportunity.

Sir Richard Body: If that was the official speech of the Liberal Democrat party, I hope that copies of it will be made available to every fisherman. I know what fishermen will then think of the Liberal Democrat party.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) used the word "bogus" four times with reference to the debate and the Opposition. There is nothing bogus about our views. Does he not realise that British fishermen are deeply disillusioned? In this debate, we speak on their behalf and articulate their fears about the future. It is important that we should highlight how appallingly they have been let down by the Amsterdam treaty. I have good reason to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, decided to insert the condition that, if there were no changes in relation to quota hopping, he would veto the treaty. That is what he promised me, my colleagues, the fishing industry and the country.
We know that that undertaking was outbid by the present Prime Minister, and that nothing has been achieved. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome should know that fishermen's disillusionment is extremely serious, and that the fishing industry is a fraction of the size that it was 20 years ago.

Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Richard Body: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I am trying to be brief.
The industry passes from father to son. Every one of the fishermen in my constituency has a son who is a fisherman and most of them have grandsons and great-grandsons who are fishermen, but fishermen's sons are not coming into the industry now. They feel that there is no hope for it. That is a great tragedy, because, once we lose their expertise, the industry will disappear, quite apart from the fish.

Mr. Heath: There was nothing whatever in what I said that could be construed in any way other than expressing disappointment that the fishing industry finds itself in the parlous state it does and stating the need for change, to give people in the industry a future.

Sir Richard Body: We do not want to deal too much with the Liberal Democrat view on the matter. At any time, including at the general election, Liberal Democrats have been the worst offenders—they have been the strongest defenders of the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Heath: No, never.

Sir Richard Body: Yes, they have. They are not among those of us who believe that the common fisheries policy is so fundamentally flawed that we should dispense with it altogether. If the hon. Gentleman believes that a communal policy is necessary, he should talk to the fishermen of Iceland or Norway. If he spoke to Norwegian fishermen, he would be assured that fishing was one of the reasons why every one of them voted in the referendum against entry into the European Union.
9.15 pm
As the hon. Member for Greenock and lnverclyde (Dr. Godman) pointed out, if any ship from any part of the European Union fishes in the waters of Norway, it never dares to do so again because of what happens to it. That is the only policy that will replenish our fishing stocks, which are falling day by day.
One purpose—although calling it a purpose is pushing things a little too far—of the debate is to urge the Government to take action at the next intergovernmental conference, which may not be very far ahead because we must make constitutional changes to enable the Community to be enlarged. When the Community is enlarged, there will be more fishing fleets. Fleets from the Baltic states will have the same rights to come into our waters as those from Spain, which will be untenable.
We have every good reason now to press for a fundamental change in the common fisheries policy—if not to end it, which may be asking too much, then certainly to end the principle of equal access. It may be difficult for the Government to make that change, because, after all, it was an earlier Labour Administration who gave way on equal access in 1976. However, that is history, and I shall not go into that. We must now consider the future, which for our fishing industry will be nil unless there is a fundamental change to the common fisheries policy. The fishermen of this country expect the Government to do something about that policy and to redeem the promises that they so dismally failed to keep a year ago.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I have always considered myself to be a fisherman's friend, so I support the Lords amendment. I consider it a major defect of the treaty of Amsterdam that quota hopping was not addressed, and that alone is a reason to delay the treaty taking effect until the provisions in the amendment have been fulfilled.
The problem before us is that, while British fishermen have felt that it is in their economic interests to sell their quota, quota hopping works against British fishing interests. The problem of quota hopping can be resolved only by an amendment to the original treaty of Rome, and I understand that some countries achieved that through the treaty of Maastricht. In the run-up to the general election last year, the Prime Minister promised to consider
holding up the IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest.
He failed to fulfil that promise and stand up for British fishing interests.
I do not want to appear presumptuous, but perhaps I could give Ministers friendly advice on how to negotiate a fisheries protocol and how to win friends and influence people in the European Union. The British presidency this year and Britain's negotiations in the IGC last year have been marked by a failure to stand up for British interests.
I give just two examples. By signing the social chapter, the Government have damaged our flexible labour market, to the specific detriment of small and medium businesses in this country. By failing to negotiate the fisheries protocol to protect our vital national fishing interests, they have let down one of the country's strategic industries.
I emphasise that, in my view, withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is not an option. We need a common European fisheries policy. Fish are a vital

commodity and resource but, regrettably, do not swim around wearing a Union Jack. They cross frontiers—they do not respect national boundaries—so we need a common fisheries policy.
However, we need a fisheries policy that is better enforced in other member states. If anything, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this country is over-enthusiastic in enforcing the common fisheries policy. I ask the Government tonight: is that true of other member states? Until recently, Spain did not even have fisheries inspectors to inspect catches. I shall not mention the issue of under-sized catches being landed in Spain and other countries.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, we need a sustainable, properly policed fisheries policy, and to protect future fish stocks there should be no over-fishing anywhere in the European Union.
In negotiations, we should take a leaf out of the Spanish book. Spain would not rely on an exchange of letters between its Prime Minister and the President of the Commission, Jacques Santer. I seek an assurance from Ministers that the deal that the Minister of State described, which is set out in an exchange of letters, amounts to a legal agreement which would stand up to scrutiny before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. In my view, it does not. The provisions set out in that exchange of letters relate to percentages, and in my view a link with nationality would be open to legal challenge before the European Court of Justice, exactly as the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was. In other words, it would be open to legal challenge on grounds of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, under article 6 of the treaty; on the right of establishment, under article 52 of the treaty; and on the right to participate in companies, under article 221 of the treaty.
In any event, the so-called deal does nothing to prevent overseas fishermen from buying British quota, and it does not remove the quota hoppers from the United Kingdom register. In my view, British fishermen cannot rely on it.
In conclusion, I reject the negotiating tactic employed by the present Government, and I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Mr. Gill: The Minister who opened the debate said that the Prime Minister was committed to the Government tackling the problems of quota hopping, and that they had faced up to those problems in a positive way. The Conservative case tonight is that the Prime Minister did not tackle that problem; more to the point, he squandered the only practical opportunity to do so that has been available to the Westminster Parliament for a long time.

Mr. Morley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gill: The Minister is nodding—

Mr. Morley: I am shaking my head.

Mr. Gill: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Shortly, I shall make some remarks about some of the things that he has said.
The Prime Minister missed that opportunity, and those of us who study the machinations of the European Community appreciate that only in limited windows of


opportunity can one get any satisfaction on such major issues. As some hon. Members have been at pains to point out, sometimes very strong-arm tactics must be used—indeed, have been used by other countries—to get satisfaction on issues that concern us. Conservative Members' complaint tonight is that the Prime Minister has failed to use any form of strength.
It was rather galling to hear the Minister say that the Conservative solutions to the quota hopping problem were not deliverable. We have no means of knowing whether the Government's proposals—if they had any—were deliverable, because they did not press them. In another place, the noble Lord Whitty said:
This is a record of failure to tell the truth to the fishing communities and the public …It is time we stopped posturing on this and told the truth to the fishing communities."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 May 1998; Vol. 589, c. 1189.]
I agree entirely with that message. I agree whole-heartedly with Lord Whitty when he says that we should tell the truth. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who has just re-entered the Chamber, also appealed for honesty.
I departed from Lord Whitty's comments when he ascribed all the ills of the British fishing industry to the previous Administration. In truth, the problems have not arisen simply in the past 18 years: they have existed ever since we joined the European Community. To this day, Ministers refuse to acknowledge that the basic tenet of the common fisheries policy is equal access to the common resource without discrimination. By dint of the accession treaties signed in Corfu, that is now part of the acquis communautaire.
How did the Fisheries Minister respond? In a letter to Fishing News on 1 May 1998, the Minister said:
The present restrictions on access within the six and 12 mile limits expire on 31 December 2002.
I must give credit where it is due: we have managed to convert the Minister to that view and he is correct in that belief. He goes on to say:
We are confident of their renewal".
Perhaps the Minister will tell us by what token he believes that that derogation will be renewed. The same letter to Fishing News records:
The system of quotas and relative stability will be reviewed by the end of 2002. But it does not expire then and will continue unaltered unless the Council decides otherwise.
There is clearly great confusion in the minds of Ministers if they do not understand that derogations run out in 2002—of that there is no doubt.
To demonstrate conclusively that the Minister does not understand that point, I remind him of an answer that he gave me at Question Time earlier in the year, when he said:
the principle of relative stability takes precedence over the issue of common access."—[Official Report, 30 April 1993; Vol. 311, c. 440.]
How can that be? Will the Minister explain tonight why he believes that a derogation is superior to a treaty commitment? Who has advised the Minister that that is the case? What motive lies behind the Minister's interpretation? More to the point, what evidence can he produce to substantiate his claim? Right hon. and hon. Members are entitled to know the answer to that question, and British fishermen will also be very interested in that answer.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend displays great perceptiveness and his usual intimate

knowledge of the subject. Does not the House need to know what trades the Minister is prepared to make in order to extend the derogation?

Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. In the world of horse trading—that is what goes on in Brussels—something must be given in order to obtain a benefit. That is another question that the Minister might answer when he sums up this evening. What will he trade to ensure that the six and 12-mile limit derogation is extended, and to ensure the continuation of relative stability?

Mr. Nicholls: We have had an interesting and, in some ways, sombre debate. There have been 11 speeches, nine from Back Benchers: most were extremely impressive; some—especially that of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), which I shall not for a moment try to match—were made from the basis of knowledge of the fishing industry; one, to which I shall refer in a moment, was positively odd, but even a serious debate deserves its lighter moments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was right to say that the key point is not how we feel about Europe—on one level, it is not even how we feel about fish. The key point is how people feel about their politicians and would-be leaders who say one thing—unequivocally, unambiguously and straightforwardly—and then do not simply fail in their objectives, which is a common lot of politicians in a fallen world, but do not even attempt to deliver.
9.30 pm
This is a sorry business, and wholly typical of the Prime Minister. He believes that he discharges the functions of his office by smiling his way around the capitals of Europe, and that such a performance amounts to statesmanship. He is aided and abetted by the Foreign Secretary, a man who is so lamentably unfit for his job that the only task that he performs for the Government is to make the Prime Minister look good by comparison. When people with that attitude are in charge of the nation's destiny, it is necessary to hold a debate such as this.
We have heard the usual criticism that the amendment may not be particularly well drafted. That does not matter. The amendment is perfectly straightforward: it has enabled the House to shine the harshest possible light on what the Prime Minister did, and to have this debate. People who take an interest in those matters can look at Hansard next week, next year and in perpetuity and understand what has been done. The amendment has performed a most valuable function, because, as I shall show in a moment, the way in which the Prime Minister handled the negotiations and set out his stall violated all the norms of intellectual honesty. There are other ways of describing that sort of behaviour outside the House, but that will do for my purposes this evening.
We have heard much about the common fisheries policy, and hon. Members will have their views about what an ideal CFP would be. Where nations share the seas, there has to be a fisheries policy. A working title might be the CFP, but it is not our job to debate what the contents of an ideal CFP might be. It is sufficient for our purposes to say that, over the years, the CFP has not done


British fishermen any good. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, it has not done much good for the fish, either.
If time permitted, we could debate the CFP, but that is not the point. The one thing that should be common ground between hon. Members is that quota hopping cannot possibly be right, whatever our views on Europe, fish or the CFP. Foreign-owned and foreign-crewed ships take catches out of the United Kingdom allocation and land them abroad—behaving in that way is simply untenable. It was noticeable that hon. Members on both sides of the House have not said a good word about the Government in practice, but one can say that quota hopping is simply unacceptable.
What are the facts? They are clear, and profoundly uncomfortable for Labour. Any Government can be accused retrospectively of not spotting difficulties, but that is too easy. People do not expect a Government to spot every devious turn of events that could bring about a certain situation, but they expect them to react properly when a problem is perceived. The idea that the previous Government did not react properly, quickly and decisively to quota hopping is completely at variance with the facts. The facts are that we said that we would act, and we did. The Labour Opposition said that they would act, and they did not. They did not fail—which is what we would have expected—because they did not even try.
The previous Government's record on quota hopping was honourable. First, we tried to impose on owners licence conditions on the loading and crewing of their ships. Secondly, through the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, we tried to limit the ownership of vessels to British nationals and British companies. That was the right thing to do, and my recollection is that it was so obviously the right thing to do that the House did not even divide on Second Reading. Labour Members have suggested that it was a dreadful Act: not a bit of it. The House was not even divided.
In due course, we had the indignity of legislation passed by this sovereign House of Parliament being struck down by the foreign European court. That is what happened in the Factortame judgment, and the indignity did not end there. In 1996, a further judgment of the European Court of Justice required United Kingdom domestic courts to assess the compensation that must be paid to Spanish fishermen for the money that they were done out of by not being able to pillage our fishing grounds when the 1988 Act was in force.
That is the measure of the problem. Faced with the Act being struck down, there is nothing to suggest that the previous Government did not react properly. They tried to see what could be negotiated, and they came to the conclusion pretty quickly that, if anything were to be done, it would have to be by an alteration to the treaty. That was our position throughout, and why we acted as we did.
The suggestion by the Minister of State that our European friends and partners did not realise that we wanted the treaty to be altered is lamentable and laughable. We made it clear throughout: my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) could not have made it more clear. He said:
The IGC won't come to a successful conclusion until we are satisfied that among our other objectives the problem of quota hopping is resolved satisfactorily.

The previous year, Lady Trumpington said in the other place:
we have notified the IGC, the Commission and other member states that we shall be tabling proposals to deal with the problem of quota hopping… they will take the form of a protocol to the treaty".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1996; Vol. 573, c. 82.]
We went ahead and tabled those proposals. The Minister of State thinks that it backs up his argument to say that a German Minister may not have done his homework properly. At least he can smile: I give him credit for that.

Mr. Doug Henderson: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that the starting point of a negotiation is that the other side understands what one is trying to do. How could the previous Government get an agreement with Klaus Kinkel if he had not heard of the protocol and did not know what they wanted to negotiate in the first place?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman repeats the point that was put to him because it was thought to be a relatively simple one that he could wrestle with on the Floor of the House. The idea that we sprung this protocol on our partners at the last minute and that they did not know what was afoot is quite frankly wrong.
The Minister also argued that it was not feasible for us to put our foot down at Amsterdam and say, "We shall not shift until this matter is dealt with." Was that really not feasible? It was not only the Conservative Government who thought that it was feasible: the Opposition also thought so.
I accept that this confusion is not the fault of the Fisheries Minister: he is merely a Parliamentary Secretary, and he does not lay down policy. He does what he is told and, if he forgets what he is told, it appears on his messenger. He has previously said that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—who was in charge of negotiations at that time—had said that quota hopping would be "pursued vigorously" at the IGC, and that Labour supported that approach. The then Leader of the Opposition thought that it was feasible. He said:
we certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest… where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are.
That is what the Prime Minister said.
Every debate should have some light relief, and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said that the Prime Minister did not really mean what he said and that in fact he meant the precise opposite, but he wanted to be nice to the Prime Minister of the day. That is a fair precis of the position. The then Leader of the Opposition said emphatically, "We will back the Government on this. It is a feasible policy and if we go to Amsterdam, let there be no doubt. We will be every bit as tough."
So what did tough-talking Tony manage to achieve when he got there? Did he put his foot down and say, "No. I am sorry. I said it, and my word is my bond"? When the Prime Minister offers that, one should always take his bond.
What actually happened was that there was an exchange of correspondence. In the new, friendly, communautaire arrangements, a "Dear Tony" and "Dear Jacques" exchange of correspondence was produced triumphantly in June last


year, although the Prime Minister had made it absolutely clear that there would be a seamless thread between his desire and that of the Conservative party to stand up for British interests. Basically, that exchange of correspondence does no more than state what people already understood the position to be.
Just in case there should be any doubt that it should be legally binding—this is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and the substance of my question to the Minister of State—and just to make sure that the Prime Minister's humiliation was complete, Jacques Santer pointed out in the exchange of correspondence that it was not binding. He said that he agreed with the proposition about the economic link, adding, however:
On the other hand, any requirement of an economic link which exceeds those limits cannot be justified by the system of national quotas.
He went on to make that point, too. Even at that time, flaccid, useless and impotent though that exchange of correspondence was, the Spanish were still serving notice that, if anything were done to build on that agreement, it would be open to challenge.
Where are we now? We have been told that some new proposals have been worked out, so where are they? Aficionados of such matters will have to find an obscure parliamentary question of 12 May saying in effect, "These things are in the pipeline. We are waiting for Europe to tell us whether we can do what we want."
The Spaniards have already said what they think about that. They have raised "grave reservations and doubts" about the revised version of the United Kingdom proposals. They are concerned that visits to ports have been dropped from the range of options for providing an economic link with a fishing area. They have criticised the "disproportionate" way in which landings and residency have been set out, and in a host of other ways they have made it abundantly clear that there is not the slightest doubt that, when they are in a position to do so, they will refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.
One does not have to be a very good lawyer—which is why even the Prime Minister should realise it—to know that anything that safeguards the British position must be to the detriment of somebody else, and the only way in which that detriment or fairness to British interests—whichever way one looks at it—can be enshrined in a way that ensures that it cannot be subject to legal challenge is through a protocol to the treaty.
So where are we tonight? The Prime Minister set out a position clearly and unequivocally, and he has gone back on it. The only point we need to know—I accept that it is of academic interest only—is whether the Prime Minister always intended to break his word or whether it was an idea that he had afterwards. Was it that, in the end, he simply did not have the courage to go to Europe and be a little Britainer? Was it that, despite everything he said, he simply could not contemplate the idea of having to walk across a European stage safe in the knowledge that the only people who were on his side were his own fishermen and the people in his own country? In other words, did he always intend to break his word, or was it something that he decided to do because he thought that the fishermen simply were not worth the candle?
Tonight, we are witnessing a depressing display from the Government, who have taken one position and are now saying something entirely different. We are about to

see the Minister—whom I like and get on with—stand at the Dispatch Box and disown his own words or distinguish them in such a way that will make him look knavish or foolish or both. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) pointed out that we have not even begun to address what will happen in 2002 when the derogations come to an end. What we have seen tonight and what we shall hear from the Government is shabby and squalid—and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Morley: First, may I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? I assure him and the House that I meant no discourtesy in not being present to hear his opening comments. I was involved in interviews for the chairs of the new Regional Development Agencies in order to ensure a rural dimension to the appointments. I was very grateful to be asked by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning to participate in that exercise. I had hoped to be present for the beginning of the debate, and I apologise for the fact that my timing was slightly wrong.
In this debate, we have heard nothing but a rewrite of the history of the fishing industry and a verbal airbrushing of what has happened. This Government inherited a complete and utter shambles of a fishing industry after 18 years of the Conservative party's stewardship. Claims that the protocol proposed by the previous Government would have solved the issue of quota hopping have been nothing but ludicrous. To suggest in any way that Labour in opposition made false claims is both fatuous and insulting. I shall deal with those points in due course.
I turn to some of the excellent speeches in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who has more experience of fishing than many in the House, spoke with great authority on the subject.

Mr. Mitchell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morley: I am pleased to have my hon. Friend's support on that if on nothing else.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that the amendment is meaningless and totally pointless. He asked questions on several points. As an avid reader of Fishing News, he will know that I have set out some of the answers in correspondence. I should like to reassure him on the Corfu agreement and European Union fishing permits. EU fishing permits already exist in some fisheries; there is nothing new about that. I assure him that fishing permits would not replace member states' roles in licensing their national fishing fleets. That would occur only if a majority voted to introduce a permit scheme.
There is no proposal to introduce such a permit scheme, and the United Kingdom Government would not support any such proposal. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that equal enforcement and control is essential in the European Union. He will know that, under our presidency, we brought forward a paper on enforcement and control, which was unanimously supported as a basis for improving enforcement and control across all European member states. That is going ahead.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was very imaginative in finding a new reason for the previous Government's failures in the


fishing industry. It appears that all the fishing industry's problems were due to the dock labour scheme—a most interesting concept.
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman's points about sustainability. He made very serious points, particularly given his role on the Marine Stewardship Council. None the less, he is not in a position to lecture this Government on sustainability when the Government of whom he was a member failed to make any progress whatever in reducing fleet over-capacity against targets set by the EU.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that there was not one example of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, making a promise and not delivering on it. I thought that that was a quite incredible statement. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal seems to have forgotten that his Administration promised that their policy of non-co-operation with the EU would bring about an end to the beef ban. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon told the House that the period of non-co-operation had been a huge success, a great victory, and that the beef ban would be lifted in November 1996. Given their success in the campaign of non-co-operation, what on earth makes Conservative Members think that they would have been more successful in a campaign to try to amend the agreement reached at the intergovernmental conference, which would have required the support of all member states, as each had a veto in that negotiation?
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) also has great knowledge and experience of the fishing industry. He humiliated the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal by pointing out his mishandling of the decommissioning scheme. That money should have helped the whole industry to restructure, but instead it went to a small number of trawler companies. I accept his case for common fisheries policy reform when the European Union is enlarged. No new member state that does not have quota or an historical track record of fishing in our waters will get access to any of our quota-controlled stocks. I also accept his point about the need for the regional dimension to be strengthened.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his compliment. The fishing industries of the Irish republic and the United Kingdom are still suffering terribly from the disgraceful conduct of Spanish trawler owners and skippers, who sweep the seas clean and will try any kind of fiddle to dodge their obligations.

Mr. Morley: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not tolerate the rules being broken. We have made that clear several times. We recently conducted prosecutions in the cases of 14 Spanish-owned UK vessels, which resulted in fines totalling £1 million for transgressions.
The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) was honest in his comments about the failures of previous Conservative Administrations. I know of his longstanding interest in fisheries. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) is a new Member, but he already has a proud record of standing up for his fishing communities. 1 noted the support that his inshore fishermen gave him in the recent debate about razor

clams. He was right about quota hoppers. I assure him that we are in the final stages of producing a document about quota hopping and economic links. I shall say more about that in a moment.
The only issue on which I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is that the amendment is bogus. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) spoke about his inshore fleet. He knows of my support for the inshore industry and his fishermen. He is wrong to say that the amendment is not bogus.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)— a Conservative Member—gave advice on how the Government could win friends and influence the European Union, which I found incredible. The rift between Tory Members of the European Parliament and the rest of the Conservative party must be even greater than I had thought.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is a regular contributor to these debates. I cannot go into detail about all his points in the time available. As another avid reader of Fishing News, he will know that I have spelt out the Government's position on six and 12-mile limits and relative stability, and that the Commission has supported that and written letters making the same points as I have made.
I welcome the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in his first Front-Bench outing in a debate, but I was disappointed by his attempt to cover his lack of knowledge of the fishing industry with personal abuse of the Prime Minister. The House deserves better than that.
The Conservatives were slow to react in government in the early 1980s to the emergence of quota hopping, with foreign-owned vessels registering in the UK and fishing our quota. They introduced an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, but Labour Members pointed out that the amendment was contrary to the Single European Act that the Conservatives had introduced. Indeed, in the Factortame case the European Court overruled it.
The Conservatives had several opportunities to deal with quota hopping. They could have dealt with it during the negotiations on Spanish and Portuguese accession in 1985, but the then Government did not even mention it at that time. They could also have raised it on the occasion of Swedish, Finnish and Austrian accession—but again, while Spain threatened to use its veto to get advantages for its fishing industry, the Conservatives did nothing, apart from agreeing to the Spanish demands as they were made.
After 18 years, the Conservatives' answer was to introduce a protocol at the IGC. Everyone who had followed the debate, whether inside or outside the fishing industry, knew that that was an utterly bogus suggestion. First, even if the protocol had been carried, it would not have removed one quota hopper from the list; it would not have made the slightest difference. Secondly, not one of the 14 other member states supported the then Government's position, and every one of those 14 had a veto. Yet the Conservatives seem to think that they could have made progress on that basis.
It is true that at that time, in opposition, we were following the debate about the IGC and the protocol, and we made it clear that we did not rule out a future Labour Government's withholding their support at the IGC if we felt that we could make progress on that basis. However, in government it did not take us long to realise that that route was a complete dead end, and that there was no point in wasting time on something that could not be achieved.

Mr. Howard: If that was such an obvious dead end, why did the Prime Minister say, days before the election:
we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are"?

Mr. Morley: I have made it clear that that was said in opposition. It would have been wrong then to rule out any option. I repeat that when, in government, we had a chance to see what the situation was, it was clear that there was no possibility of achieving support for the protocol. In the letter, we promised that the Labour Government would deal with quota hopping as a high priority. We have delivered on that promise—so much so that France and Belgium are already modelling an economic link for licence conditions based on our proposals. The matter is in its final stage, and we shall make the details public in the near future.
The Tory Administration were a failure in their attempts to deal with those issues. They failed in their original fisheries policy, and they failed to modify it when they had the opportunity, with Spanish and Portuguese accession. They failed to ensure that the economic circumstances of the United Kingdom fishing industry made it profitable and secure for our fishermen to hold on to their quotas.
It was the Conservative Government who encouraged fishermen to sell their licences, because no decommissioning scheme was available. They also ignored repeated requests by Labour Members to introduce one. The Conservatives—not the Labour Government and not the Labour party—must take responsibility for the fact that there are quota hoppers on the register now.
The Conservatives also failed to recognise that the United Kingdom regulations would be challenged before the European Court of Justice. They left government with a potential 30 per cent. cut across the board in prospect for every fishing boat in this country. We have managed to resolve that situation and bring some stability to the fishing industry, as the previous Government failed to do. The last word on the Tory Government's record is the fact that the fishing industry voted out just about every Tory Member who represented a fishing port—and their record is no better now than it was then.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 134.

Division No. 298]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy



Ashton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Atherton, Ms Candy


Allan, Richard
Atkins, Charlotte


Allen, Graham
Austin, John





Baker, Norman
Dismore, Andrew


Ballard, Jackie
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Banks, Tony
Donohoe, Brian H


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Battle, John

Drew, David


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Begg, Miss Anne
Edwards, Huw


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Efford, Clive


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Ennis, Jeff


Bennett, Andrew F
Etherington, Bill


Benton, Joe
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Berry, Roger
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flint, Caroline


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Borrow, David
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brake, Tom
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brand, Dr Peter
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gardiner, Barry


Browne, Desmond
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Buck, Ms Karen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burgon, Colin
Gerrard, Neil


Burnett, John
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burstow, Paul
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godman, Dr Norman A


Byers, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Cable, Dr Vincent
Goggins, Paul


Cabom, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gorrie, Donald


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Grant, Bernie


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gunnell, John


Chaytor, David
Hain, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hancock, Mike



Hanson, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hesford, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Hill, Keith


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Cotter, Brian
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Kate


Cranston, Ross
Home Robertson, John


Crausby, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hope, Phil


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cummings, John
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dalyell, Tam
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darvill, Keith
Hurst, Alan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hutton, John


Davidson, Ian
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jamieson, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jenkins, Brian


Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Denham, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie






(Welwyn Hatfield)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rapson, Syd


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kumar, DrAshok
Rendel, David


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rogers, Allan


Laxton, Bob
Rooney, Terry


Lepper, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leslie, Christopher
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruane, Chris


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Linton, Martin
Salter, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Sanders, Adrian


Livsey, Richard
Savidge, Malcolm


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sedgemore, Brian


Love, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCabe, Steve
Singh, Marsha


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Skinner, Dennis


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mclsaac, Shona



Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


MacShane, Denis
Snape, Peter


McWalter, Tony
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spellar, John


Mallaber, Judy
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mandelson, Peter
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marek, Dr John
Stevenson, George


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Meale, Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Merron, Gillian
Stott, Roger


Michael, Alun
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stringer, Graham


Milburn, Alan
Stunell, Andrew


Mitchell, Austin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moffatt, Laura
Swinney, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morley, Elliot
Timms, Stephen


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Touhig, Don


Norris, Dan
Trickett, Jon


Oaten, Mark
Truswell, Paul


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Hara, Eddie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Olner, Bill
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


O'Neill, Martin
Tyler, Paul


Palmer, Dr Nick
Vaz, Keith


Pearson, Ian
Vis, Dr Rudi


Perham, Ms Linda
Wallace, James


Pickthall, Colin
Walley, Ms Joan


Pike, Peter L
Watts, David





White, Brian
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wise, Audrey


Wicks, Malcolm
Wood, Mike


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)



Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Willis, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wills, Michael
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Winnick, David
Mr. Kevin Hughes.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Amess, David
Horam, John


Arbuthnot, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Baldry, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jenkin, Bernard


Blunt, Crispin
Key, Robert



Body, Sir Richard
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Boswell, Tim
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brady, Graham
Lansley, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Leigh, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Letwin, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bums, Simon
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Butterfill, John
Loughton, Tim


Cash, William
Luff, Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey



Maples, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Collins, Tim
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Colvin, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cran, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Curry, Rt Hon David
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Norman, Archie


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paice, James


Duncan, Alan
Paterson, Owen


Duncan Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Prior, David


Evans, Nigel
Randall, John


Faber, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Flight, Howard
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Green, Damian
Syms, Robert


Greenway, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Townend, John


Hammond, Philip
Tredinnick, David


Hawkins, Nick
Trend, Michael


Hayes, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles






Waterson, Nigel
Woodward, Shaun


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Whittingdale, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Willetts, David
Sir David Madel and


Wilshire, David
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. Denis MacShane, Sir David Madel, Mr. Patrick Nicholls and Mr. Greg Pope; Mr. Doug Henderson to be Chairman of the Committee; and Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Jane Kennedy.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (LONDON) BILL

The Order of the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill on Friday 3 July having been read and discharged—

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Gas Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Barry Gardiner: It would be a foolish Member of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who presumed to test your patience by standing here at the end of a long parliamentary day in a vain attempt to suggest that the fate of the gas connections industry is a matter of vexation to most of his or her constituents. The gas connections industry is simply not a sexy topic. At the risk of testing not your patience, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister's sense of humour, I venture to suggest that gas connection is no Dounreay. Be that as it may, bullying and lies, discrimination and overcharging will, I trust, never fail to be of interest to the House, and it is on that basis that I beg leave to detain hon. Members this evening.
The Gas Act 1995 introduced competition to the business of connecting premises to the mains gas network. Previously, the market had been under the monopoly control of British Gas Transco. In January 1997, my constituent, Mr. Andrew Duffield, who had been a senior manager at Transco, left to set up a specialist gas connection company—Exoteric Gas Solutions—to compete against Transco. EGS not only increased choice, but brought considerable savings to customers.
I am here not to praise EGS, however, but to expose Transco. As with any former monopoly, Transco enjoys a pre-eminent market position, but it is also charged with custodianship of the existing network. All competing connection companies are compelled to apply to Transco for certain information and services relating to the existing network. Final connection to the mains can be performed only by Transco itself, and competitors such as EGS must obtain a quotation from Transco for that final aspect of any new pipe laying scheme before they can submit an accurate quotation for the whole scheme to their customers.
Transco has a statutory duty to provide such information and services to my constituent's company and other competitors. Transco is licensed by the Office of Gas Supply under the 1995 Act, and is required to treat all participants in the connections market without discrimination. It cannot gain an unfair advantage by delaying a quotation for final connection to its competitor so that its own connections team can provide a more timely quotation. By the same token, it cannot quote an exaggerated cost for such work by a competitor in order to raise the cost of the competitor's quote to the end customer.
I have no intention of misleading the House. I have said that Transco cannot do those things; I should have said that, under the legislation, it may not do so. Evidence in my possession suggests not only that Transco can operate in an illegitimate and anti-competitive manner, but that it does so repeatedly and systematically. I spoke in my introduction not only of discrimination and overcharging, but of bullying and lies. Those are serious allegations, and I must justify them.
In March and April 1997, EGS was competing against Transco and other connection companies for a contract to design and build the new mains and services required


to supply an additional gas load at Chilterns crematorium in Amersham. On 3 April, my constituent received the following faxed letter:
Dear Mr. Duffield
A formal complaint has been received from Ofgas about the activities of Exoteric Gas Solutions. The basis of the complaint is that you have been seeking to exploit commercially confidential information gained during the course of your employment with Transco.
The matter specifically referred to is Chilterns Crematorium, Whielden Lane, Amersham.
As you can imagine, Transco takes this complaint very seriously indeed.
Accordingly, I should be obliged if you would let me have your observations on this matter as soon as possible. I would wish to have these before taking any further steps.
Ofgas have specifically requested that the client, in the case referred to, does not wish to have any further involvement. I would ask you to respect that request.
That letter was signed by Transco's legal services manager.
Mr. Duffield immediately contacted Ofgas to ask whether any such complaint had been received about EGS, and whether Ofgas had requested that EGS should have no further involvement with any client. He received a quite astonishing answer on 8 April. It read:
Dear Mr. Duffield
CHILTERNS CREMATORIUM, WHIELDEN LANE, AMERSHAM
Further to both our telephone conversation and your fax of 7 April to the Director General, I am writing in order to clarify the situation regarding the above site.
I would first of all like to reiterate that the complaint did not concern the activities of Exoteric Gas Solutions. It related to an alleged breach of Transco's licence conditions. As a result of the complaint, Ofgas has asked the Head of Compliance at BG plc to ascertain whether or not such a breach in fact occurred.
May I also point out that the complaint did not come from Ofgas. Ofgas has simply requested that the Compliance Officer look into a complaint that was made to Ofgas.
Moreover, Ofgas has at no stage requested that Exoteric Gas Solutions have no further contact with its clients.
I appreciate the concern that you have about this matter and trust you feel reassured that it is the conduct of Transco that is being investigated, not that of Exoteric Gas Solutions.
It was signed "Yours sincerely" by the regulation and business affairs manager.
That is pretty conclusive, not to say a damaging reflection on the interpretation of events provided by Ofgas's legal services manager in his original letter to EGS. None the less, it could have been an end of the matter but for the fact that rumours began to circulate in the industry to the effect that EGS was the subject of an official investigation by Ofgas and that perhaps one should not do business with it.
At this point, Ofgas, EGS and Transco were in possession of the facts. EGS could have little reason to spread such a rumour against itself. Ofgas wrote to it again on 9 July, stating:
We are concerned that rumours detrimental to your company would seem to be circulating and we intend to discuss with BG plc how this issue has been handled.
BG plc is of course the parent company of Transco.
For its part, BG plc's general counsel responded as follows in a letter to EGS dated 25 June 1997:
I can only reiterate that I have no knowledge of allegations of a formal complaint being spread throughout the Gas Industry.
I have a copy of a memo dated 27 March 1997. It is an internal memo headed "BG plc Transco Memorandum from the Area Directors to all the Managers of District Operations". It specifically notes:
To be circulated to other Level 3s.
I contend that it illegally denies EGS the statutory rights owed to it by Transco under the Gas Act. I will read it in full. It states:
E.G.S.
We are dealing with a high level complaint concerning this company and the alleged misuse of Transco information. Could you ensure that you and your staff have no dealings with this company or with its principal (Andrew Duffield) until further notice.
Not three months later, the chief legal officer of BG plc could state in a letter dated 25 June 1997 that he had
no knowledge of allegations of a formal complaint being spread through the Gas Industry.
It is said that the difference between a lawyer and a supermarket trolley is that one can get more food into a lawyer, but that it is more difficult to keep the lawyer going in a straight line. However, the charge that I must level tonight does not remain focused on the legal officers of Transco, be they ever so exalted.
On 27 March, when the memo was circulated, it was circulated from the "area directors". The area director of the east area was Mr. Phil Nolan. He is now the managing director of Transco as a whole. On 1 September 1997, he wrote to Mr. Duffield specifically to confirm whether he had ever issued information to Transco's employees not to deal with EGS. He responded:
I can confirm that I have issued no such instruction and there are no such instructions to that effect in place.
If Mr. Nolan has lied, it is the duty of Ofgas to examine whether he is a fit and proper person to hold the position of managing director of the country's largest gas transportation company.
In November last year, I met representatives of Ofgas, and the question of its powers as regulator was discussed. In particular, it transpired that, where there has been a breach of section 42 of the Gas Act, it is open to it to take action under section 28. Such action may include the imposition of a financial penalty, and may extend to the recommendation of compensation to any adversely affected third party.
I believe that there may be a loophole in the Act, such that, where a company in violation of its statutory obligations has put in place revised procedures that make future violations less likely and has done so at the behest of Ofgas, and where a further breach is subsequently discovered to have taken place before that procedure was rectified, that breach is no longer subject to remedy by Ofgas under section 28 action. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to examine that problem to see whether any amendments need to be made to the legislation.
I have spent much time elaborating on this matter because the charges that I have made are extremely serious in their own right—I trust that my hon. Friend will ensure that they are fully investigated. More than that, I have dwelt on the matter because it provides important


background for understanding the other issues of discrimination and overcharging that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech and to which I now turn.
Last year, on 22 December, I was grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet Mr. Duffield and me. At that meeting, we left with my hon. Friend an extensive dossier detailing cases in which Transco had acted in what we considered was an anti-competitive manner, in spite of its statutory duty to treat all participants in the connections market without discrimination. After that meeting, the Minister communicated his own concerns about those matters to Ofgas—indeed, it appeared that, after his prompting, Ofgas had pursued its investigation with renewed vigour and that a resolution might be possible. Unfortunately, I have to report that that hope proved unduly optimistic.
My hon. Friend will recall the case of Saxon business park, where Transco quoted EGS a figure of £5,650.97 for a final connection to the Transco main, only to reduce it to £800 after the quotation was persistently challenged. I am able to provide many further cases where Transco has acted in a discriminatory manner by quoting an unreasonably high cost to EGS. For Brook Street business park, on 13 February 1998, a final connection was originally quoted by Transco at £1,133; after challenge, it was reduced to £578.25—it had been a 100 per cent. overcharge. The list is growing by the day. A quote of £44,328 was made for a connection which, had it complied with condition 5 of Transco's own public gas transporter's licence, would have cost no more than £14,000—an overcharge of almost 300 per cent. At St. Andrew's school in Watford, a quote of £1,137 was made which, when properly calculated, amounts to £440.25.
The House will appreciate that such wildly inaccurate initial quotations by Transco discriminate against EGS, not only on the basis of cost, but by delaying EGS's ability to provide a prompt and accurate quotation to its own end customers. It is impossible for a small company such as EGS to compete effectively in its chosen markets when faced with such behaviour from the dominant player—the monopoly as was, Transco. I urge my hon. Friend to make full investigations into these matters. I am happy to provide him with further information, and I trust that he will be in correspondence with Ofgas to pursue the matter with all due vigour.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for the terms in which he has presented his case tonight. He is fast earning a reputation in the House as a most conscientious champion of his constituents. The assiduous detail with which he has backed up his strong assertions has resulted in a strong case. Strong words have been used, and the case demands detailed investigation. I shall try to respond in general to my hon. Friend's points. I shall also say a few words about the Government' s overall approach to the regulation of the gas industry.
Let me say from the outset that I am well aware of the subject of the complaint made to Ofgas by a company—Exoteric Gas Solutions—based in my hon. Friend's constituency about certain aspects of the arrangements for new connections. As my hon. Friend said, we met on 22 December last year, but the matter has still not been sorted out. Since then, Ofgas has received certain

allegations—I stress that they are allegations—from other companies, as well as from my hon. Friend's constituent, that Transco is acting in an anti-competitive way in relation to the provision of connections and systems extensions.
Under the regulatory framework, the duty to investigate such complaints lies not with the Department of Trade and Industry, but with Ofgas. Section 31 of the Gas Act 1986 states:
It shall be the duty of the Director"—
the Director General of Gas Supply—
to investigate any matter … which … is the subject of a representation (other than one appearing to the Director to be frivolous) made to the Director by… a person appearing to the Director to have an interest in that matter".
My hon. Friend referred to previous Gas Acts. The Gas Act 1986 provided for the privatisation of British Gas and competition in supplies to certain large contract customers. It also set up the office of the Director General of Gas Supply as the independent regulator of the gas industry. Since then, there have been a number of Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiries into the gas market, as well as a review by the Office of Fair Trading, which have brought significant changes to the industry and its structure.
The 1993 Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry led to British Gas separating its trading and transportation functions and the Administration of the day's decision to introduce competition for domestic consumers. The way for that was prepared by the Gas Act 1995, which amended the 1986 Act to provide for the introduction of competition to all gas consumers.
The 1995 Act introduced significant changes into the structure of the industry, and brought to an end the supply and transportation of gas by a single integrated company. It introduced the concept of three separate licensed entities: the gas supplier, the gas shipper and the public gas transporter, all of which are subject to a licensing system operated and policed by the Director General of Gas Supply. That separation is important, and I shall return in a moment to the role of the public gas transporter.
As I have emphasised, the regulator has statutory responsibility for the licensing of transportation, shipping and supply of gas in Great Britain, and other duties in relation to gas metering and the investigation of complaints. The Director General of Gas Supply is under a general duty to secure that, so far as it is economical to meet them, all reasonable demands in Great Britain for gas conveyed through pipes are met; to ensure that licence holders are able to finance their licensed activities; to secure effective competition in the shipping and supply of gas; and to protect the interests of consumers in respect of prices, continuity and quality of supply, and rights of entry to their premises.
The Director General of Gas Supply has various other duties governing the exercise of those functions. I stress in particular the duty to protect the public from dangers arising from the conveyance of gas through pipes and from the use of gas conveyed through pipes, and the duty to secure effective competition in relation to the conveyance of gas through pipes to pipeline systems and to areas to which gas has not previously been conveyed. That relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend.
An essential feature of the regulatory framework is the division of function between the Government and the Director General of Gas Supply as the sectoral regulator. Broadly, the Government set the framework and the director general is responsible for regulating the industry within the framework set out by Ministers. I emphasise that distinction.
At the heart of the gas industry is the national transmission system—the national gas grid—which was set up as a result of connecting the North sea terminals. It comprises some 160,000 miles of mains pipeline and is owned and operated by Transco, one of the old British Gas's two successor companies, which is required to have a public gas transporter's licence.
The national transmission system is a natural monopoly. It is hardly conceivable that competitors should construct their own pipeline grid. The regulation of the monopoly is therefore crucial. Although the national transmission system is a monopoly asset, there is scope for competition in connections and systems extensions—in connecting new premises and extending the gas network to areas that previously have not been supplied with gas. That was spelled out when competition was opened up.
Competition in those areas arises in two ways: through the scope for other public gas transporters directly to compete with Transco in providing connections and system extensions, and through the scope for self-laying, where consumers purchase and lay the pipes. In addition to Transco, there are now six licensed public gas transporters to which consumers can turn.
As I said, the director general has a duty to exercise her relevant functions in relation to public gas transporter licences to secure effective competition in the conveyance of gas through pipeline systems and in the supplying and laying of service pipes. Each public gas transporter has a duty under the Gas Acts in relation to each of its authorised areas to develop and maintain an efficient and economical pipeline system for the conveyance of gas and, in so far as it is economical to do so, to comply with any reasonable request to connect that system and use it to convey gas. Under the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 1986, a public gas transporter is entitled to recover the full costs of any mains extension project.
Against that background, it is important to emphasise that, if competition is not to be thwarted, the dominant player's charges for connections and system extensions should not be above or below cost, with hidden cross-subsidies from other parts of its business. In short, it is important that there should be cost-reflectivity and that Transco should not discriminate in the prices or service standards it provides to competitors.
Ofgas has recently been addressing that issue through public consultation documents. In August 1996, it published a document entitled "British Gas TransCo: connection and system extensions—regulating for competition". Responses to that document were published in February last year.
Ofgas set up the Ofgas connections steering group, which is considering how best to promote competition in gas connections and pipe laying throughout Great Britain. As a direct result of that work, Transco has made proposals to eliminate what might be seen as discriminatory behaviour on its part. Transco has been developing arrangements for unbundling charges for connections and system extensions, and that process is continuing. Meanwhile, Ofgas has been investigating potential barriers to competition.
I have discussed Exoteric Gas Solutions with the Director General of Gas Supply. I make it absolutely plain to my hon. Friend that we and Ofgas take his complaints very seriously. Ofgas recognises the importance of the matter to my hon. Friend's constituents and the business concerned, which is a start-up business. The size of Transco compared with that of the business makes this a serious matter. Ofgas continues to investigate the allegations.
I understand that Ofgas wrote in March to the independent public gas transporters and the self-lay companies that it was able to identify to ask them for historical information about Transco's performance in providing connections and services since 1 April 1997. Ofgas gave 12 examples of the sort of dispute that it regards as relevant to the allegations that it had received and on which it was seeking comments. Some companies have responded. Ofgas acts only on the basis of information provided to it, but I am assured that the director general is using her powers to explore and investigate the matter thoroughly, and will ensure that, if allegations are substantiated, enforcement action will be taken to eliminate anti-competitive behaviour.
If my hon. Friend thinks that it would be useful, I would be more than willing to meet him again, perhaps in my office at the Department, with the Director General of Gas Supply or her senior representatives, so that we can go over the ground more fully and in more detail in the light of the information that my hon. Friend has brought to the House. 1 thank him for raising the matter and for the way in which he has done so. He has made strong allegations, but he has backed them up with solid research that ought to be precisely the purpose of Adjournment debates. The matter will not lie at the Dispatch Box—I shall take it further.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.